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!

Wikipedia Moved To MariaDB 5.5

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the sharks-and-jets-typing-furiously dept.

Databases 133

Peetke writes "As we all know Oracle is not the biggest friend to the Open Source Community. Long standing OSS supporter Wikipedia has now moved from an optimized fork of MySQL 5.1 to MariaDB 5.5, for both its English and German sites. Wikipedia expects all other languages to follow within a month. Performance-wise, this move has no big implications, but it will ensure our biggest community database will live long and prosper."

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

There are only two guarantees: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524151)

frosty piss and taxes!

Re: There are only two guarantees: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524171)

O'Doyle rules your HOSTS file!

seriously? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524181)

Soo they don't like Oracle too?

Re:seriously? (-1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524677)

So an organization who asks for donations, waste their money changing Database systems for the sole purpose that they didn't like the company that bought the old one, although they didn't show any signs that they are going to damage the product or make it worse for them in any ways? Sounds like a wast of donated money to me.

Re:seriously? (4, Insightful)

Ultra64 (318705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524785)

Right, they couldn't possibly have a good reason for doing it.

Re:seriously? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524861)

If they have a good technical reason, or support reason, sure... But just because they are like Ohhh Oracle is Bad, I better switch, is just stupid.

Re:seriously? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524983)

Since Oracle took over MySQL they've shown they routinely delay releasing patches for CVE security flaws for months until they can all be released together without documenting what fixes what issue. Several times updates have either ignore issues, removed fixes to earlier ones or in at least on case I remember applied a fix for an issue which failed to fix it and actually introduced a new one. This despite multiple FOSS projects (Debian,RHEL,MariaDB,Percona) having developed working patches separately which Oracle chose not to use.

They also don't disclose the details of many security vulnerabilities. That sounds reasonable on first glance, but it makes it a nightmare for sysadmins to assess whether it is worth system downtime to apply a patch, especially when that means upgrading to a newer DB version not tested against the application and which might break the application in several cases (for example due to the newer reserved keywords lists). A firewall or other measures may be sufficient to mitigate the threat, but that can't be assessed without seeing the details.

Re:seriously? (4, Informative)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525959)

If well MariaDB is backward compatible with MySQL, have some advantages on its own, like more choices for storage engines (i.e. Aria as a better myisam than myisam, xtradb instead of innodb, and others), and should have better performance in general than Mysql for the same equivalent version in the same hardware.

That Oracle is being bad right now with their concept of "open" (like suing Google for using Java [cnet.com] ) is an extra motivation.

Re:seriously? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526103)

Welcome to the OSI community, we do things cause we think its cool and then wonder why we fail. We need wikipedia though, it serves a purpose beyond its maintainers, so either join the community and protest, fork over some more money, or... do nothing and hope it stays up.

Re:seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524865)

It's a waste of money when there database is free.

Re:seriously? (0)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525247)

Yes, because there man hours needed to be put into this. Even if they are volunteers they could be working on doing something else that may have saved them money.

Re:seriously? (4, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525681)

Even if they are volunteers they could be working on doing something else that may have saved them money.

Have you ever managed volunteers? They work on what they want to work on. You can't just reassign them to a task they don't like, or they will walk away and donate their time to some other organization. Most likely they had some MariaDB fanboi (or fangoil) who was willing to do this, but was not willing to upgrade MySQL instead.

Re:seriously? (4, Informative)

drakaan (688386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526721)

Most likely they had some MariaDB fanboi (or fangoil) who was willing to do this, but was not willing to upgrade MySQL instead.

Doubtful. More likely they wanted to be able to get decent community support for the forseeable future. Something that's not a given for a previously community-based software product that got gobbled up by a succession of commercial entities.

Oracle has gone to great lengths to make MySQL a second-class citizen to its own database in terms of support, and worse, they're not really getting the whole community part of why people used MySQL in the first place...or maybe they *do* get it and just want MySQL to go away so they can sell Oracle DB.

Either way, the folks at Wikipedia must have seen value in moving to a compatible, open-source, community-based database...just like the one they started with.

Re:seriously? (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526999)

The effort put into this transition is probably not as drastic as you make it sound.

Re:seriously? (5, Informative)

rvw (755107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524929)

So an organization who asks for donations, waste their money changing Database systems for the sole purpose that they didn't like the company that bought the old one, although they didn't show any signs that they are going to damage the product or make it worse for them in any ways? Sounds like a wast of donated money to me.

So you didn't RTFA [wikimedia.org] ???

For our most common query type, 95th percentile times over an 8-hour period dropped from 56ms to 43ms and the average from 15.4ms to 12.7ms. 50th percentile times remained a bit better with the 5.1-facebook build over the sample period, 0.185ms vs. 0.194ms. Many query types were 4-15% faster with MariaDB 5.5.30 under production load, a few were 5% slower, and nothing appeared aberrant beyond those bounds.

Better performance on such a heavy traffic site is neither a waste of time nor money! ;-)

But, did you donate already? (2)

Herve5 (879674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525379)

Otherwise, otherwise... in my country (France) there is a nice saying, 'Les conseilleurs ne sont pas les payeurs', that basically describes you.

(attempt at translating: 'Most prominent advisors are generally not the investors to begin with')

Re:But, did you donate already? (1)

MoxFulder (159829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526199)

Herve, this is one of my favorite French expressions. We don't have an exact equivalent in English, but there are a couple of similar ones:

"Talk is cheap."
"Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know."

Re:seriously? (5, Informative)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525405)

Ummmm... that's not what happened. They weren't using a stock release of MySQL. They were using an old 5.1 fork that Facebook created and has been maintaining. They decided they wanted the enhancements that the newer releases offered, and had a choice of migrating to a newer release of MySQL, or migrating to a newer release of MariaDB. Either way, they were migrating and had to put forth the effort to do so.

Re:seriously? (5, Informative)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525847)

Not only this (but please mod up anyway!), but as far as I know MariaDB is compatible with plugins designed for a comparable version of MySQL. At least for my Django and PHP work this holds true. I mean, isn't this the reason most developers abstract the database library anyway?

Re:seriously? (2)

backslashdot (95548) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525443)

As a WIkipedia donor .. I support this move. I got nothing against Oracle, but why would they use a database that is not the flagship database of the company? It's bound to cost more and lack features. MariaDB is owned by a foundation with goals more in line with Wikipedia.

Re:seriously? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43525539)

They aren't changing database systems. They are upgrading to the latest mainline version of the database they were already using. Don't be confused by the name change: MariaDB is a recent fork of MySQL where most (all?) new open development occurs. See MariaDB [wikipedia.org] for the relevant history. Basically, "switching" from MySQL to MariaDB is like "switching" from OpenOffice.org to LibreOffice or from XFree86 to Xorg. MySQL got taken over by Oracle so the real development was forked with the new name of MariaDB.

Re:seriously? (0)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year and a half ago | (#43527167)

MySQL got taken over by Oracle so the real development was forked with the new name of MariaDB.

No it didn't. MySQL was sold in a way that allowed Oracle to then purchase it. There's no reason to believe MariaDB will be any different. The fact that contributors to MariaDB have to assign their copyright to Monty's company says he's at least thinking about doing the same trick again.

Re:seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43525925)

Clearly you've never done business with an Oracle rep....

Re:seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43527861)

In the future, read the article before piping up with a stupid comment.

no way! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524183)

No way did I get first post!!!

Re:no way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524253)

Correct. There is no way you did get first post.

Re:no way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524277)

No way did I get first post!!!

Nope.

Information (5, Funny)

neokushan (932374) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524199)

For more information, Wikipedia has a statement regarding MariaDB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MariaDB [wikipedia.org]

Re:Information (2, Interesting)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524209)

What statement? It looks like an ordinary article to me.

Re:Information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524225)

Whoosh!

Re:Information (3, Interesting)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524381)

What statement? It looks like an ordinary article to me.

As a fork of a leading open source software system, it is notable for being led by its original developers and triggered by concerns over [the] direction [taken] by an acquiring commercial company Oracle.

It may only be an article but it says all that needs to be said. Oracle bought up MySQL and immediately dropped support for a range of systems that had previously been supported, probably in the hope it would drive scores of customers into the open arms of the Oracle sales team and their extortionate license prices. I now have to migrate several MySQL databases that previously lived a happy life on AIX 5 to something else and MariaDB is a welcome alternative because I'm sure as [Expletive deleted] not going to shell out thousands of $ for overpriced Oracle DBs with a pile of features that I don't need.

Re:Information (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524447)

AIX? Here's a nickle son, go get yourself a real operating system!

Re:Information (5, Funny)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524877)

AIX? Here's a nickle son, go get yourself a real operating system!

Young man, I'll have you know that I was using UNIX long before Linux was a 115 kB compressed tarball on the funet.fi FTP server.

Re:Information (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43525827)

AIX? Here's a nickle son, go get yourself a real operating system!

Young man, I'll have you know that I was using UNIX long before Linux was a 115 kB compressed tarball on the funet.fi FTP server.

If you're that old, a nickle should seem like a lot of money!

Re:Information (3, Funny)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526301)

AIX? Here's a nickle son, go get yourself a real operating system!

Young man, I'll have you know that I was using UNIX long before Linux was a 115 kB compressed tarball on the funet.fi FTP server.

If you're that old, a nickle should seem like a lot of money!

**Sigh** I'd explain the concept of inflation to you but I don't have the time. I'm busy loading shotgun shells with rock salt so I'll be prepared for the next time Larry Ellison makes the mistake of stepping onto my lawn.

Re:Information (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526399)

As someone who was using mainframes back when: AIX? here's a nickel son, go get yourself a real IBM box.

Re:Information (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526055)

I think he was aiming for +5 Funny.

Stupid mods...

Re:Information (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525121)

-1, KarmaWhore

Two steps forward, one step back. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524243)

Too bad they're not on PostgreSQL instead. So many retardisms in MySQL.

slash next? (4, Interesting)

axehind (518047) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524267)

Is slashdot next?!?!?!

Re:slash next? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524591)

Not until MariaDB is completely broken. Right now, it's much too stable for Slashdot.

Re:slash next? (3, Funny)

rvw (755107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524949)

Is slashdot next?!?!?!

Slashdot needs MariaMagdalenaDB for all those wankers here!

But... But... Why? (0)

CRC'99 (96526) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524271)

So reading the links etc, there is no real reason that stands out apart from "Oracle may screw MySQL".

Is there a reason for this other than ifs, buts and maybes?

Re:But... But... Why? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524301)

What Oracle has done in the past and how they operate their business in general I think.

Not moving now, is ensuring Oracle will screw you. Why wait for it to happen?

Re:But... But... Why? (4, Informative)

Annirak (181684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524309)

RTFA.

For the last several years, we’ve been operating the Facebook fork of MySQL 5.1 with most of our production environment running a build of r3753. We’ve been pleased with its performance; Facebook’s MySQL team contains some of the finest database engineers in the industry and they’ve done much to advance the open source MySQL ecosystem.
That said, MariaDB’s optimizer enhancements, the feature set of Percona’s XtraDB (many overlap with the Facebook patch, but I particularly like add-ons such as the ability to save the buffer pool LRU list, avoiding costly warmups on new servers), and of Oracle’s MySQL 5.5 provide compelling reasons to consider upgrading. Equally important, as supporters of the free culture movement, the Wikimedia Foundation strongly prefers free software projects; that includes a preference for projects without bifurcated code bases between differently licensed free and enterprise editions. We welcome and support the MariaDB Foundation as a not-for-profit steward of the free and open MySQL related database community.

It's part performance and part philosophical. Given that wikipedia is a strongly philosophical enterprise, this seems reasonable.

Re:But... But... Why? (2)

mexsudo (2905137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524379)

The philosophy is sound. Open Source has a future beyond the fall of any individual enterprise

Re:But... But... Why? (4, Insightful)

CRC'99 (96526) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524587)

It's part performance and part philosophical. Given that wikipedia is a strongly philosophical enterprise, this seems reasonable.

Well, the performance difference didn't seem to be huge - in fact, some stats were slower.... I don't buy for a second that it was for performance reasons.

Philosophy - maybe - however Oracle contribute quite a bit to OSS - more than a lot of companies - See: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/linux/technical-contributions-1689636.html [oracle.com]

In a nutshell, they are working on NFS over IPv6, data integrity checks for ext3, they maintain libstdc++, they worked hard on BTRFS, If anything, they have helped open source much more than most other companies.

Again, I don't see the philosophical reasons other than 'because we can'.

Re:But... But... Why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524903)

however Oracle contribute quite a bit to OSS

Looking like you support OSS is not a bad business move as even Microsoft has learned. It also makes underhanded sabotage of OSS much easier because they can "We support OSS and aren't greedy scum" FUD most people.

Re:But... But... Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43525077)

Oracle has a few employees that are solid OSS contributors, and apparently they have some management support. That's been true for years (e.g. their OCFS filesystem...). However, they're only an OSS contributor in a tactical sense. Many years ago (and much earlier than one would've expected!) they came to the realization that Linux was the future (or at least, a large chunk of the future) in the server space, and they made the very smart tactical decision that they didn't want to be relegated to a dusty corner where their products only ran (well) on legacy Sparc/Solaris, HP/UX, IBM AIX, etc environments. So they made their core Oracle products work on Linux, and as a part of doing that job fully and trying to make their stuff really shine on Linux, they necessarily had to get involved in the OSS community.

Later came the MySQL acquisition, which was another tactical decision along the lines of "Well, that worked great and we retained our corporate Oracle customers that wanted to move from Sparc/Solaris (etc) to x86/Linux, but... we can't get all these exiting Linux/OSS users to adopt Oracle because MySQL works well enough for them and its free, so lets take over MySQL too and own the Linux relational database space".

It's all tactical, and it's all designed to corner the market on relational databases (and various other bits that go on top of them) as hard as they can. Philosophically, as an organization, Oracle doesn't have any real interest in promoting Open Source or doing right by the community. Their vision isn't long-term enough for that. It was just barely medium-term enough to make the right calls to get involved in OSS at all. Their big-picture motivation isn't "Build awesome free software for the world to share", it's "Let's find a way to trap all these Linuxy people into paying us for something".

Re:But... But... Why? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525279)

Does the reason matter so long as they do it? And I doubt anyone ever believed that Oracle did it out of the kindness of their heart. They're a commercial organisation, they have to make a profit - or at least break even. And they won't do that buy not selling anything. In fact more people buying Oracle keeps them in business and that'll keep them employing OSS coders.

There's no such thing as a free lunch - OSS coders either have to be paid for their work or they do it in the free time when they can around their real jobs. And while the latter approach is laudable it wouldn't alone have led to OSS as we know it today.

Re:But... But... Why? (2)

geek (5680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526959)

Does the reason matter so long as they do it?

Yes because it means their support is shakey and their motivations can swing them in another direction at any time. Oracle can sabotage any project they are a part of and knowing who their CEO is should make people wary of them.

I'm not a purist but I get where the purists come from when it comes to Oracle. I don't trust them and I don't give them my money.

Re:But... But... Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43525241)

Well, the performance difference didn't seem to be huge - in fact, some stats were slower.... I don't buy for a second that it was for performance reasons.

??

For our most common query type, 95th percentile times over an 8-hour period dropped from 56ms to 43ms and the average from 15.4ms to 12.7ms.

Emphasis mine. This is a 18% drop in average query time. This is easily like getting an extra server for every 9 servers you already have. I don't know how many servers they have, but the transition represents thousands of dollars in savings if any new servers will need to be bought.

Re:But... But... Why? (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524343)

"Oracle may screw MySQL".

Is there a reason for this other than ifs, buts and maybes?

One definition of madness is to try the same thing again and again and keep expecting different results. It's Oracle. You will get screwed.

Re:But... But... Why? (1)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524405)

"Oracle may screw MySQL".

Is there a reason for this other than ifs, buts and maybes?

One definition of madness is to try the same thing again and again and keep expecting different results. It's Oracle. You will get screwed.

Amen!

Re:But... But... Why? (3, Interesting)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year and a half ago | (#43527103)

I don't understand why people trust MariaDB either. The result the last time everyone jumped onto Monty's open-source ship? He cashed out and put all of his customers on a road that led to being screwed by Oracle. There's a bit of madness expecting different results adopting MariaDB I wouldn't buy into either.

Hint: when a contributor agreement like the MariaDB one says copyright must be assigned to "Monty Program AB", your contributors are usually being setup so that the owner of that copyright can then profit from the community's free work on the project, a decision that will be motivated by what's best for them. There are a few software projects that require copyright assignment that aren't doing that, like the gnu projects. Monty Program AB is not a non-profit with a decades long history of anti-commercialism like gnu though. It's a regular company run by someone who has screwed both his paying customers and his open-source user community exactly this way once. Why are people signing up such that he could do it again?

Re:But... But... Why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524355)

MariaDB has quite a few improvements over MySQL. More information here: https://kb.askmonty.org/en/mariadb-versus-mysql-features/

Note that this does not address the specific storage backend features, which are quite attractive on their own. There are even plans to revive a key-value store backend at some point.

Said improvements may or may not be a factor in their decision to move, but it's almost a completely drop-in replacement. So the real question would by why not. Simply having it running on my servers gives me that clean and tidy feeling. You know the one I mean.

Re:But... But... Why? (2)

Alastair Gilfillan (2653961) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524395)

Is there a reason for this other than ifs, buts and maybes?

The performance increases were negligible (with some decreases, as well) so: No reason to switch other than a symbolic statement and to avoid any potential future licencing issues or litigation. The MariaDB project will mirror the free-as-in-beer (and maybe paid?) features of future MySQL versions while aiming to be a "drop-in" replacement. On the other hand, it's better to do it now in case the projects do diverge and the MySQL upgrade path becomes problematic or expensive.

Re:But... But... Why? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524875)

If you arfe a business looking forward to the long term those ifs, buts and maybes are important.
You serve yourself well by not waiting till the last minute.

I Don't Like The Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524279)

MariaDB is a crappy name. I know crappy names are the usual preference for open source projects, but MySQL seemed to be the exception. It was a good name that clearly described what the project was. MariaDB is no good.

We need to DDoS Oracle until the give back MySQL. Who's with me?

Re:I Don't Like The Name (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524323)

Replacing one database named after one of the author's daughters, with a database named after another of the author's daughters. Seems pretty consistent to me.

Re:I Don't Like The Name (5, Funny)

hoggoth (414195) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524653)

The first daughter's name is MySQL? I should introduce her to my nephew, little Tommy ;'Drop Tables.

Re:I Don't Like The Name (4, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524761)

Her name is just My.

Re:I Don't Like The Name (4, Informative)

Gyske (687847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525831)

He also has a son named Max: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaxDB [wikipedia.org]

Re:I Don't Like The Name (2)

hoggoth (414195) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526003)

And a dog named "Mongo".

Re:I Don't Like The Name (2)

rvw (755107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524997)

Replacing one database named after one of the author's daughters, with a database named after another of the author's daughters. Seems pretty consistent to me.

Well I guess we are talking about the fifth generation of Maria's then. They certainly know how to procreate!

SluttySQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43525489)

SQL for the masses!

That's simple (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524281)

As we all know Oracle is not the biggest friend to the Open Source Community

That's because the "communitah!" is a bunch of sniveling brats. I wouldn't be their friends either. Either way Oracle has made and contributed to plenty open source software products over the years.

Re:That's simple (2)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524351)

Please point out the projects it contributed to?
OpenOffice is dead and shipped off to apache, MySQL is stagnating, Oracle linux is nothing but a Redhat clone with no changes but copyright names change. Oracle is not a friend to open source. Never been either.

Re:That's simple (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524385)

Btrfs, VirtualBox, Java. Just to mention a few.

Re:That's simple (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524541)

I'll raised you a dead opensolaris, complete with now closed source ZFS and dtrace.

Re:That's simple (4, Insightful)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524639)

Java was already open source when Oracle bought Sun. And since then, Oracle has been trying to close it back again with bullshit patent claims.

Re:That's simple (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524743)

Java was already open source when Oracle bought Sun. And since then, Oracle has been trying to close it back again with bullshit patent claims.

As far as I know they actively contribute to the open source implementation, which was what the question was all about.

Re:That's simple (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526403)

to upgrade you can't let your package manager just grab the latest java runtime. You have to login to oracle and click "accept" before you can download it. I am switching to icetea.

Re:That's simple (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526513)

Oh, yeah, Java: I'm sure they'll have Lamba ... any year now. For years C# and Java were leapfrogging one another in functionality - each would add everything the other had, plus a little, with each release. But that stopped when Oracle bought Sun, and Java fell far behind even their own plans.

Map, reduce, and similar list-processing operations have been one-line-with-lamba for many years now in C#, while Java has pushed lamba back yet another year, and I'm not sure it will even have inline list processing to go along with lamba when Java 8 finally does come out. Oracle has ruined it.

Re:That's simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524477)

Re:That's simple (-1, Flamebait)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524527)

Oracle is plenty friendly to open-source software just not to freetards.

Re:That's simple (1)

gorzek (647352) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526363)

A concise summary, if worded provocatively.

In other words, the real problem is people expecting "open source" to mean the same as "free software." They don't. They are two different things. "Open source" is a pragmatic approach to making life easier for developers without overly inconveniencing profit-driven institutions; "free software" is a philosophical movement designed to ensure user freedom, even at the expense of corporate interests.

Of course, confusing the two concepts has been one of the key goals of the open source movement, in order to extinguish "free software."

Re:That's simple (1, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524575)

Also, if Oracle is not friends with open source why have they sponsored numerous Linux and FOSS conferences?

Re:That's simple (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526163)

Advertising?

Re:That's simple (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525061)

That's because the "communitah!" is a bunch of sniveling brats.

Screw what the open source community community has to say about it.

I've been in two private organisations that have been utterly fucked over with overpriced underperforming shit spewed forth by Oracle unthe the guise of some "solution" for something or other. Speaking to collegues at other organisations, my experience is not unique. Many of them have been oracled. The experience is never pleasant.

There is no chance in hell I would trust them with anything that they are very much in charge of (there are enough checks and balances in the Linux and GCC community I feel to curb their worst instincts).

And OSS has nothing to do with it.

Oracle being a bunch of bastards is the reason.

Re:That's simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43525713)

I didn't say Oracle wasn't a dickish company. But to try to act like they've made or contributed nothing to FOSS because they aren't "friends with the communitah" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is flat out wrong. If they would stop acting like spoiled brats maybe Oracle might be less of a dick.

Re:That's simple (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525943)

If they would stop acting like spoiled brats maybe Oracle might be less of a dick.

Why on earth would you think that? Oracle is far more of a dick to its paying customers than to the OSS community, probably because the OSS community can act like dicks and make a fuss and fork and/or not accept their changes.

The best way of getting fucked by oracle is to pay them money. But honestly, there are more pleasant ways of getting fucked for money and it will cost less than $10,000,000 a pop.

As we all know?? (4, Interesting)

Crimplene Prakman (82370) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524325)

"As we all know Oracle is not the biggest friend to the Open Source Community." This is a bit weasely. We all don't know any such thing. For example, Oracle was in the top ten of organisations that contributed code to Linux last year: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2012/04/linux-foundation-releases-annual-linux-development-report [linuxfoundation.org] Since then it has been very public with Oracle Linux, and made several large contributions from that front. Shucks, it's even got its own OSS portal: https://oss.oracle.com/ [oracle.com] I'm happy to agree it's a big bad corporate beast and does a lot of wrong in the world, but if you're going to criticize it, at least be factual.

Oracle killed OpenSolaris. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524505)

You should visit http://www.opensolaris.org ...

Oh, you didn't know that Oracle killed OpenSolaris?

Doesn't that tell you something about Oracle's liking for open source projects?

Tell me how Oracle can be a big proponent of open source but yet cancel what was its leading open source project that featured innovation from a bright team of software engineers and in doing so alienate a very large and significant percentage of the senior engineers on that project, many of whom subsequently left?

So whilst you might think that Oracle is OSS friendly, really the beast is anything but.

Re:Oracle killed OpenSolaris. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524719)

andnothingofvaluewaslost.png

Re:As we all know?? (2)

SIGBUS (8236) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524549)

True, but then again, Oracle has closed off access to MySQL test cases, and let's not forget what they did to OpenSolaris.

Re:As we all know?? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524663)

As far as I know they just stopped contributing to OpenSolaris. But they never attempted to stop anyone from picking it up and keep running with it, which led to Illumos and a few other projects taking its place. It's unfortuneate, but not evil.

MySQL is a bit of a different story.

Re:As we all know?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524583)

As much as I hate Oracle, Guy Steele [oracle.com] works there, so they aren't all bad.

Re:As we all know?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524711)

Oracle only supports free software inasmuch as they feel that it will help them drive sales of their not-free-at-all software and support. Oracle is not your friend! If their contributions to the community did not somehow equate to new yachts for Larry, they wouldn't contribute anything.

Case in point, I had to renew maintenance for Primavera (Oracle scheduling software) a month ago at a cost of $2.6K for one year - my biggest complaint is that it (frequently) corrupts its own database, and the "patch" that oracle issued several months ago consists of about eight JAR files that must be copied to each client, by hand, into the install directory. They can't even be bothered to package it up into an installer, or release an updated installer for everything - you have to deploy 8.2 and then manually upgrade it to 8.2.1. Oh, and it force-installs Java 6u28, even if you have an updated JRE, and even though it then bugs you to upgrade to Java 7 latest! All that nonsense aside, it still has security holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through - any user with a mind to do so could take over the admin account, or trash the DB, trivially. No, it is not my config, it's the way the thing was designed. If any other big mean corporation (Microsoft, Apple, ) put out a product like this, they'd be drawn, quartered, and the pieces hung on pikes all down Wall Street. QED.

Re:As we all know?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524851)

We do know it's "not the biggest", surely, even by your own metrics. That's all Peetke asserted. Seems pretty solidly factual. And that's before we get into the business of the amici briefs in Oracle vs. Google that are arguing for an interpretation of the law that would _permanently_ _fuck_ open source and the mere interoperability of closed source packages.

Re:As we all know?? (1)

lowlands (463021) | about a year and a half ago | (#43526593)

"Since then it has been very public with Oracle Linux"

Ah you're maybe referring to the CentOS-like clone they created from Red Hat's source packages. Once they spun their isos and slapped together a 3 page website they went after Red Hat's customers saying "their" so called unbreakable Linux is better than Red Hat's. That same unbreakable Linux which is based *entirely* on Red Hat's source packages. That's pretty evil in my book. Add how they are shielding off MySQL bugs and development and what they did to OpenSolaris and you get a pretty clear picture of a dinosaur-going-the-way-of-the-dodo who's trashing anything Open while giving in to its insatiable hunger for ginormous license fees and sending ginormous invoices to misguided customers for their $1000-suit "consultants".

It makes total sense to migrate to MariaDB, Percona, EnterpriseDB or PostgreSQL as fast as you can. While you are at it replace BerkeleyDB with LMDB. Last time I looked OpenLDAP, Postfix, OpenDKIM and other projects already support it. And it's faster and more reliable than BerkeleyDB too.

The only way Oracle will (hopefully) make some attempt to become a proper member of our Community is when they feel it where it hurts most: revenue streams. So slam the door in the face of that pompous Oracle rep, don't renew the license(s), drink the F/OSS Cool Aid and enjoy the view.

Me too! (1)

alonso (63617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524371)

Me too, in all my production server!

Maria (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43524397)

The most beautiful sound I ever heard:
Maria, Maria, Maria, Maria . . .
All the beautiful sounds of the world in a single word . .
Maria, Maria, Maria, Maria . . .
Maria!
I've just met a database named Maria,
And suddenly that name
Will never be the same
To me.
Maria!
I've just kissed a database named Maria,
And suddenly I've found
How wonderful a sound
Can be!
Maria!
Say it loud and there's music playing,
Say it soft and it's almost like praying.

Maria,
I'll never stop saying Maria!

The most beautiful sound I ever heard.
Maria.

Web scale database (1)

hoggoth (414195) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524625)

But is MariaDB web scale [youtube.com] ?

Now (0)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524961)

If they can only move to Web 2.0, they might bring the website into the "early" 21st century.

Re:Now (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43528037)

they might bring the website into the "early" 21st century

I don't understand what it means when people say that. It's a website with organized, searchable content that can deliver varying forms of multimedia. What is not "21st century" about it?

but Amazon doesn't offer Maria (1)

cellurl (906920) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525435)

What can others (non self hosters) do? Will Amazon offer MariaDB? Is there a reason they will never do such?

Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets. [slashdot.org]

From non-Oracle to non-Oracle; why mention Oracle? (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525673)

Wikipedia was using a non-Oracle fork of MySQL (a Facebook maintained fork of MySQL 5.1) and moved to a different non-Oracle fork (MariaDB). The comment about Oracle not being a friend of OSS seems to be a non-sequitur.

Maria DB (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year and a half ago | (#43525955)

"MariaDB"? "Ishmael view" Jeebus, what's going on here? And now http://mariadb.org/ [mariadb.org] has been slashdotted^H^H^H DDoS'ed to death by the criminal organisation known as Slashdot!

Maybe we'll see some coverage in the TechEye Bible [techeye.net] , wonderful proze!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?