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!

MySQL Founders Reunite To Form SkySQL

timothy posted about a year ago | from the together-again-at-last dept.

Databases 215

mikejuk writes "The founders of the original MySQL, the open-source database, are getting back together in a merger between Monty Program and SkySQL. SkySQL was created by around two dozen former MySQL executives and investors after Oracle bought MySQL from Sun. Widenius started Monty Program AB and created the MariaDB database from some of MySQL's open source code. The merger will provide a stronger rival to MySQL, so reassuring users who are worried about Oracle's future plans for the database."

cancel ×

215 comments

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

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546911)

Dear Linux Advocate,

Money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dieter T. Schmitz
Linux Advocates, Owner

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html [linuxadvocates.com]

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546985)

You shameless whore. When you beg you should say "please".

Why don't you just post your email: dietrich@linuxadvocates.com
or the other email: katherine@linuxadvocates.com
or the other email: pmazzaccaro@linuxadvocates.com
or your number: (315) 569-0295

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547441)

Stop! You'll make his wife cry!

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1, Troll)

tqk (413719) | about a year ago | (#43547819)

You forgot this:

Dietrich T. Schmitz
110 Sherwood Acres Drive B8
Herkimer, NY 13350

I'd like some (a lot of) money too, so Dietrich, if anyone sends you any please forward it to me. TIA. This'll be *so* much better than actually working for it. Much appreciated. I'd never considered begging before.

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (2, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | about a year ago | (#43548005)

I normally mod down both trolls *and* the people stupid enough- or with too little self-control- to be lured into replying to them.

However, given that at least three ****wits have already modded you "informative" for this post, I feel obliged to point out that the original comment is more than likely a Joe job [wikipedia.org] (as well as a troll), and pretty obvious one.

Matter of fact, I wouldn't discount the possibility that "your" comment was made by the same person as the original, but the fact it was modded up shows that at least some people believe otherwise.

Seriously, I can't believe that there are Slashdotters stupid enough to take this crap at face value.

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548365)

I'm the guy who called him a whore and posted the email addresses and the phone number. He's been posting these emails in almost every thread for the last few days. He's the "my fast pc" spammer for some unknown Linux website. If you check his Contact page [linuxadvocates.com] you'll see I am not him as he doesn't like his email address displayed in a scrape-able way (he prefers "Email: dietrich at linuxadvocates dot com").

He's pretending to be an advocate for Linux but he asks for money like PBS during a pledge drive. He should know that Linux and other FOSS projects are not usually moneymakers and he should not rely on people to fund his "playing at being a big shot" hobby.

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548219)

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Alright! That's enough, this is too silly. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546913)

Please move along to the next thread, a fairy story about the police.

Executives and investors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546915)

That's all I needed to hear.

Wrong Conclusion (1)

andersh (229403) | about a year ago | (#43548027)

The newly merged company will have the two main co-creators of the original MySQL, Monty Widenius head of Monty Program AB, and David Axmark of SkySQL.

Ulf Michael "Monty" Widenius, is the main author of the original version of the open-source MySQL database and a founding member of the MySQL AB company.

What a relief (4, Interesting)

verifine (685231) | about a year ago | (#43546921)

Anything that takes Oracle out of the way of MySQL gets my vote!

Re:What a relief (5, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#43547373)

Why don't they all throw themselves in with PostgreSQL, which is more of a real robust relational database, and continue that as the true open source alternative to Oracle?

Re:What a relief (1)

Dresden Sparrow (2850503) | about a year ago | (#43547595)

Postgres is great. More of a "product" than MySQL. And options/choices are good. So I am glad to see stars align in the open source world. And great name!! I bet it will outclass MySQL in no time!

Re:What a relief (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547615)

Agreed. I'm in a position where I'm forced to use InnoDB on a product and I swear every time I hit one of its myriad idiotic limitations.

"Oh, your index key prefix can only be 767 bytes long? Well that pretty much craps all over any multi-column index use case with a varchar(255) column *plus any other single column*"

Admittedly, InnoDB makes MySQL suck *less*, but that's like saying the turd is only 8" long instead of 10".

Stay away (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547713)

Because the people who came up with MySQL shouldn't be touching PostgreSQL code.

Re:Stay away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547845)

oh how right you are ... skydb, from the people who thought foreign keys were an unnecessary, performance-compromising feature!

i just assumed she/he meant users of the database...

Re: What a relief (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547809)

MariaDB is a 100% compatible, drop-in replacement for the MySQL database. PostgreSQL is not.

So on to this same line of thought, does anybody know of a drop-in replacement for Slashdot? I've been here for what seems like 10 years and starting today I can't even login to the site, or use it with my iOS devices.

Which will power SkyNet (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#43546929)

...Hasta la vista, Baby!

SQL Query (5, Funny)

billstewart (78916) | about a year ago | (#43547725)

SELECT Name, Date, Time, Lat, Long, Photo FROM humans WHERE Name = "Sarah Connor"

Exciting development for MariaDB (5, Informative)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a year ago | (#43546939)

If I understand the release correctly, this will mean that MariaDB will continue with organizational support from SkySQL. Sounds like they are well on the road to being the top MySQL "distribution" which is good reassurance for making the switch.

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43547023)

Yes. Especially since it's a "drop in" replacement for MySQL.

I was already tempted. Now I'm pretty much convinced.

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43547215)

Maybe, maybe not.
I hope you are right but this is Oracle they are dealing with.

Now that Widenius has some "Executives and Investors" supporting him, he becomes a target for Oracle lawyers.
Even without a valid claim, they could tie him up in court for years and years.

Also remember that Executives and Investors want a ROI, and its hard to do that with an open source project like MariaDB.

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547261)

Also remember that Executives and Investors want a ROI, and its hard to do that with an open source project like MariaDB.

Erm, you're talking about the people who sold the open source MySQL to Sun for $1BN... They know there's money in open source databases....

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43547309)

Who were they planning on selling it to next, and why should that make me feel all warm and fuzzy about using My/Sky/MariaDB?

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (1)

Dareth (47614) | about a year ago | (#43548067)

I want to like it, but if they ever want any real fandom they need to pick a name and stick to it for more than 15 minutes.
I loved My - S - Q - L and I want to love whatever the hell you call it too!

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year ago | (#43547383)

Erm, you're talking about the people who sold the open source MySQL to Sun for $1BN... They know there's money in open source databases....

The face that they sold it then turned around and started a direct competitor using its own source code could potentially land them in hot water.

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (1)

prehistoricman5 (1539099) | about a year ago | (#43547829)

That is the beauty of open source - you can do that.

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43548267)

"Now that Widenius has some "Executives and Investors" supporting him, he becomes a target for Oracle lawyers."

I don't see why. Open Source projects (and MariaDB is pretty solidly Free & Open Source... I doubt they'd have even the slightest trouble proving that) have long enjoyed corporate support. I don't see that it changes anything.

Re:Exciting development for MariaDB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548431)

MariaDB is certainly the spiritual successor to MySQL, but that doesn't automatically make it the "best". Percona are doing some awesome work with things like XtraDB Cluster, for example.

Stronger rival? (0, Troll)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43546949)

Are they kidding? These people have already demonstrated their incompetence.

There are several good open source/free to use database engines. MySQL is not one of them.

Re:Stronger rival? (2, Informative)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43547007)

The majority of the internet would disagree with you. I'm not a big DB person but I do use MySQL on my hosted website. I'd happily go to Postgresql if my provider offered it though.

Re:Stronger rival? (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#43547059)

The majority of the internet would disagree with you. I'm not a big DB person but I do use MySQL on my hosted website. I'd happily go to Postgresql if my provider offered it though.

So many people (99%-ish?) use MySQL as a multi-user sqlite, to organize a few thousand rows for personal sites. And that's great, Mysql is well understood and lived long enough as a fully open source project to be a good choice. But people who use databases for *serious* work (not to devalue anyone's blog, but serious here means many tables of 1M+ rows) there is a vacuum in the open source space since the innovation that used to happen at MySQL is now kept private.

Re:Stronger rival? (2)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43547093)

Understood, but as far as I am aware, MySQL never pretended to be that. I've been aware of MySQL for over a decade and used it off and on. I'm not a DB admin so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. But MySQL was always the "Use it for your website!" DB package. Facebook seems to get a lot of use from it, granted they use a patched version.

Postgresql was supposed to be the heavy lifter if I remember right. Is this not the case?

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | about a year ago | (#43547413)

But MySQL was always the "Use it for your website!" DB package.

Hell, it's one quarter of the popular LAMP combo.

Re:Stronger rival? (3, Informative)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year ago | (#43547895)

Understood, but as far as I am aware, MySQL never pretended to be that.

Monty has long made excuses for MySQL's inadequacies (most notably the pre-INNODB argument that foreign key constraints weren't really that important and you could just enforce such constraints in software). So there *were* attempts to pretend that MySQL was a "serious" database equivalent to better alternatives. Many of the shortcuts MySQL uses (or used - some of this is historical) apply to edge cases that aren't apparent to "I'm not a DBA" developers creating simple LAMP applications. But when you *do* run into one of those edge cases, then you quickly feel the pain and realize that it could have all been avoided.

Here's a good read: http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else [grimoire.ca]

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43548079)

Thanks for the link

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

shugah (881805) | about a year ago | (#43547201)

Facebook at 13M queries per second would like to say "hi".

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547643)

Diarrhea that sprays all over the toilet bowl at high speed is still shit.

Re:Stronger rival? (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43547771)

But it's high speed!

Re:Stronger rival? (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43547919)

That shit scales horizontally, it must be web-scale.

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43547909)

Facebook at 13M queries per second would like to say "hi".

Facebook gets that throughput from the sharding system that they wrote - the individual MySQL databases aren't doing anything particularly impressive.

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

shugah (881805) | about a year ago | (#43548509)

Regardless of what database they used, to achieve the scale and performance they require would require similar clustering, memchaching, partitioning, sharding, load balancing, etc. There simply isn't an out-of-the-box database that can scale to this level without resorting to the kind of complexity that facebook has implemented.

Re:Stronger rival? (2)

felipou (2748041) | about a year ago | (#43548097)

Yeah, Wikipedia ain't serious enough.

Re:Stronger rival? (0, Troll)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43547083)

Would you use a bank that kept your account information in MySQL?

MySQL is only good enough to keep unimportant information. Which means it's not good enough, period. You can never know what will grow into something worth shit. If you built it around MySQL's (and it's bugs) you are stuck with it.

At best it's a learning tool. Maintain it for a year and you are ether hopeless or you will understand what a good database isn't.

Re:Stronger rival? (0)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43547213)

Facebook seems pretty confident in it. Nearly a billion users. I'd imagine if there was a serious enough issue with it Facebook would end up losing quite a bit of money, more than a bank likely. Granted they have their own patches and forked version but the changes aren't that dramatic that a much smaller business couldn't use it.

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

shugah (881805) | about a year ago | (#43547487)

To be fair, I think if Facebook were starting over today with a clean codebase, and know they were going to grow into such a massive enterprise, they might have made different design choices. As it is, they are committed to MySQL and have tuned, optimized and tweaked the hell out of it to suite their requirements.

Re:Stronger rival? (2)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43547835)

To be fair, I think if Facebook were starting over today with a clean codebase, and know they were going to grow into such a massive enterprise, they might have made different design choices. As it is, they are committed to MySQL and have tuned, optimized and tweaked the hell out of it to suite their requirements.

I believe a Facebook engineer once stated exactly what you suggest. I'm sure they would have gone another direction but just the fact that Facebook is able to use it like it does seems to imply it's a pretty capable open source project, despite its flaws.

In reality, MySQL is sort of a poster child for open source software. It's a case where a company started using it to keep expenses down. Out grew it but because they had the source they were able to modify it for their use and contributed it back to the community. I can't think of a better example really.

Do over?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547935)

Well, yes, if Facebook could start an organization from scratch with a gazillion dollars in the bank to work with from day one, and a clear definition of what their final product will be, they might have made different design choices. Hell, they might have written their own browser for their own operating system using their own internet.

But that's not how things work. Facebook can afford to replace MySQL if they determine it's not meeting their business needs today.

Re:Stronger rival? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547815)

Sorry, I must have missed something, Facebook is actually making money now???

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43547953)

Facebook uses hundreds of MySQL "servers" and dumb nodes in a load-balanced name-value pair object database.

Think of using a relation database like a NoSQL DB.

Re:Stronger rival? (5, Insightful)

shugah (881805) | about a year ago | (#43547429)

MySQL (or MariaDB, or SkySQL) are not suitable for use in banking, but the vast majority of database applications don't have the same requirements of banks. Banks have extremely high data integrity, retention and security requirements. Armoured cars have extremely high security and cargo integrity and retention requirements. But vast majority of transportation applications don't require armoured cars.

MySQL is demonstrably scaleable and is secure and robust enough for the vast majority of applications. It is used extensively in health care - which has fairly high privacy and data retention requirements. It's a matter of using the right tool for the right application. Sledge hammers are useful for breaking concrete, not so much for framing. Statements like "because banks don't use MySQL, you shouldn't either" are just ignorant.

Re:Stronger rival? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547979)

MySQL (or MariaDB, or SkySQL) are not suitable for use in banking, but the vast majority of database applications don't have the same requirements of banks.

You're trying to make a point in favour of MySQL (or MariaDB, or SkySQL), so I hate to contradict. But you really blew it with your opening line. Banks have no more security requirements than anyone else. As proven by their instance on clients using outdated IE only browsers. Any 'appearance' of security by banks is nothing more than theatre for the public.

Re:Stronger rival? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548133)

MySQL (or MariaDB, or SkySQL) are not suitable for use in banking, but the vast majority of database applications don't have the same requirements of banks.

You're trying to make a point in favour of MySQL (or MariaDB, or SkySQL), so I hate to contradict. But you really blew it with your opening line. Banks have no more security requirements than anyone else. As proven by their instance on clients using outdated IE only browsers. Any 'appearance' of security by banks is nothing more than theatre for the public.

Internally, banks have all sorts of rules and regulations to abide by if they want to keep their FDIC eligibility. Many of those R&R are related to security, from physical security to network and computer security. Note: internally. Many of those restrictions don't apply to public interfaces.

SQLite (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43547111)

The majority of the internet would disagree with you.

The majority of Internet users use web applications as a user, not as a server administrator, and definitely not as a developer.

I'd happily go to Postgresql if my provider offered it though.

Have you considered SQLite? Some MySQL haters would claim that some of SQLite's features are better even if the concurrency is worse, and if your site is on a plan smaller than a VPS, it probably isn't popular enough to need heavy concurrency yet.

Re:Stronger rival? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548333)

That is like saying PHP is good.
You just don't say that, man.

I hold myself as one of those developers who say that every programming language has a use, and that like a toolbox, each tool has one or many uses.
Want to know what PHP is? A rotten sandwich you left under the wrench.
Good luck hammering a nail with mold.

Trying to battle with PHP to get it to work is fruitless at best.
The language itself is a toolbox, and the toolbox is filled with every molecule that life uses.
Outside of trial and error or using blogs (that don't include the official PHP documentation because it is awful), good luck with your S&M session
Better off using a Real Language like Perl.
I'd sooner use ASP than PHP. At least the ASP developers are smart enough to know the difference between == and ===. That whole ordeal was embarrassing, so so bad.
PHP is truly the most correct answer for "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" when it comes to open source projects.

Friends don't let friends use PHP. Stay away from it, save yourself the pain.
Or at least get wrappers out the ass for it, never code anything yourself in PHP.
I was stuck for hours on a stupid bug in PHP itself because of their stupid interpretation of "weakly typed". It isn't weakly typed, stop abusing the damn term!
I had to give up and just use a library for dealing with the data because of that stupid crap. All because of a stupid issue of them silently converting data that shouldn't have been able to, and then still acted on the error. SILENTLY. WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA?!
I have since moved on from that disgusting excuse for a language and achieved greatness.

And for those people below and in general, PHP on Facebook was horribly "mangled" and upgraded, and is only on frontend servers, it doesn't run the entire site, not even remotely. And there are lots of those servers now. Saying they get 50 gigaquads a second is horribly wrong. It is like counting all the bandwidth of the internal connections of a CPU and then saying we have 50 terabit bandwidth to the GPU. (something that moron Major Nelson done back before PS3 and X360 came out, my god that was hilarious. )
And considering the site is awful quite a bit of the time that I know 100% isn't an ISP issue, yeah, naw.
Their actual weight-lifting servers are written in non-toy languages.
Not to mention that Facebook half the time forgets how to even search, regularly decides to not return results and countless other stupid things, so bad.
Facebook is hardly a good example of a well done site, even for PHP. And that is just the coding side of it, not the terrible interface(s) it has/had. That is a whole other kind of Awful.

That depends on what kind of user base you want (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43547097)

There are several good open source/free to use database engines. MySQL is not one of them.

That depends on what kind of user base you want. If you develop a web application for installation on hobbyist web sites, something comparable to WordPress or phpBB or MediaWiki, you need to make it compatible with MySQL because so many budget web hosts provide only MySQL (and possibly SQLite).

Re:That depends on what kind of user base you want (2)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year ago | (#43548343)

Then you've not shopped around as there are plenty of budget providers that offer PostgreSQL. I buy and sell vintage & antique furniture from estate sales on the side. Last year I took a break from IT projects, but I did write a simple mobile web app to display my stuff online using jQuery Mobile, Perl, and PostgreSQL using A2Hosting as my provider for like $6 a month.

This year I'm working on IT projects again. This one just so happens to be based around Wordpress for many reasons. In Q3 this year I've got it in my budget to hire two developers full-time to basically port everything we're using to PostgreSQL. Why? I've dealt with Oracle before. Many times before. And I don't think their corporate culture has changed any, it's just a question of when will they rake you over the coals for MySQL. MariaDB should be a drop in replacement. Should. I've never gone through any major DB change without problems. I'd much rather go to something that I know is stable and pretty well drama free. PostgreSQL offers that right now while the M*SQL community figures out which direction it's going.

Re:Stronger rival? (3, Funny)

LordNightwalker (256873) | about a year ago | (#43547277)

There are several good open source/free to use database engines. MySQL is not one of them.

On the other hand, it's the only concurrent DB I would consider to be a perfect match for PHP. ;)

Re:Stronger rival? (2)

MrNemesis (587188) | about a year ago | (#43547333)

Whilst I agree with you (having sweated blood over fixing corrupted MySQL tables more times than I'd care to mention), and wish there was more support for more robust databases, it seems most of the world hasn't caught up with this idea yet.

Not only do most webhosts only support/provide MySQL (IIRC due to Postgres and others not having quota support), but there's a vast swathe of projects out there that don't have support for anything other than MySQL. Heck, I was looking into upgrading my home install of Gallery only to find out that support for Postgres (or even SQLite) was dropped completely:
http://codex.galleryproject.org/Gallery3:Requirements [galleryproject.org]

A similarly disheartening thread from Piwigo can be read here:
http://piwigo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=18008 [piwigo.org]

Sadly, for a bewildering array of software it's MySQL or nothing. It's partly this monoculture that has, IMHO, contributed to much of the animosity against MySQL, since users are unable to even contemplate trying out something else.

£0.02

Re:Stronger rival? (0)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43547497)

The fact that MySQL is such an incompatible POS that you are stuck with it should prevent anybody from ever starting another new project tied to it.

Any project that is tied to MySQL was started by incompetents. You are better off avoiding these as they will suck.

Facebook proves it.

Re:Stronger rival? (1)

shugah (881805) | about a year ago | (#43548179)

You're confused. The problem is not MySQL, rather, it's tying an application to ANY specific database. No two databases implement all of the features of a modern relational database in the same way. Transactions, concurrency, prepared statements, stored procedures, referential integrity, mem caching, connection pooling, etc, are all implemented differently and in some cases not at all, and imply database specific limitations on the application. DB Abstraction layers, Object Relational Mapping, code generation/scaffolding, etc. all help, but don't entirely remove the need for regression testing, optimization and even kludges for each different database.

However there are good reasons to design for a single database. If, as in the case of Facebook, your application will only EVER be hosted in a single environment, it makes no sense to support multiple environments. Facebook doesn't sell an application to the public to be downloaded and hosted at your favourite ISP, they offer a service that is hosted on their own infrastructure.

If the performance requirements are such that regardless of which database you choose, it would require extensive tuning of both the database and the application, it makes little sense to do this for multiple databases.

But.. (2)

ltjohhed (231735) | about a year ago | (#43546953)

But Monty doesn't have a daughter named Sky?!

Re:But.. (2)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year ago | (#43547113)

Shhh! -- don't tell his wife! :-)

Re:But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547343)

Sky is his gay sex slave.

Skynet (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546971)

skySQL will be part of the skyNET infrastructure that will kill us all :)

It's all in the sky.... and clouds....

Maria or Sky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546975)

So both MariaDB and Sky will coexist, or are the combining?

The crying game (5, Informative)

sdinfoserv (1793266) | about a year ago | (#43546987)

Monty needs to stop crying about what Oracle is / will do with MySQL. He sold MySQl walkng away with almost A BILLION DOLLARS! If he cared that much, he wouldn't have sold.

Re:The crying game (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43547089)

Is there even a reason to use MySQL as a database anymore? I was under the impression that most people recommend postgresql these days.......

Re:The crying game (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547243)

Yes, some of us like Insert performance. You *can* get great performance in PostgreSQL if you use COPY but that is not compatible with ORMs. In my experience, if you use postgres in the magical right way, it works great but if you treat it like you would a MySQL server, it fails miserably. MySQL is very easy to administer and if you know what you're doing it runs well.

I think postgres is amazing from a developer perspective but they need to fix insert performance and work on clustering a bit more.

Re:The crying game (4, Funny)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43547967)

dev/null has superior insert performance and similar transactional guarantees.

Re:The crying game (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547259)

Most shared hosts provide MySQL, so a lot of web software is coded with MySQL in mind first.

Re:The crying game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547289)

Only when you in the unfortunate circumstance of wanting to run a certain application, and the programmer who made it decided to only code it for a single database (being mysql).

I've had to run mysql in a few spots due to that. I migrate back to postgresql immediately as soon as someone adds support of it to the application, or a new application comes along with the feature set we need which supports it.

Re:The crying game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548417)

MyIASM workloads aside, Postgres replication is simply inferior. MySQL 5.6 is fantastic, especially with its parallel replication threads. Postgres has its usage cases, but MySQL is certainly not inferior for most.

Re:The crying game (4, Informative)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43547119)

For a billion dollars even a true believer would sell. You could take a fraction of that billion and make another DB and still have enough money to jerk off with thousand dollar bills for the rest of your life.

Re:The crying game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547411)

Ewwww. Paper cuts!

Re:The crying game (1)

zachie (2491880) | about a year ago | (#43548491)

Usually when a company buys a start-up they make sure a non-compete clause is included in the terms of the acquisition to avoid this. The "make another DB" part, I mean.

Re:The crying game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548497)

You don't jerk off much then...

Re:The crying game (1)

nefus (952656) | about a year ago | (#43547293)

It's called politics and marketing. He's trying to build support for a future product with his left hand while his write hand is playing with the money.

Re:The crying game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547457)

Why the hell not? If I could sell my brainchild to larry the fuckhead for a billion I'd do that without second thought. AND then fork it, of course.

Re:He sold to Sun, not Oracle (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547635)

MySQL was sold to *Sun*, who were good stewards of the code and community. Then Sun was taken over by Oracle.

Re:The crying game (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547881)

Monty = GREED

the latest news from i-programmer.info (3, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#43547013)

"general absence of programmers, engineers fails to deter C-levels from merging two companies in an effort to become a more robust alternative to databases that still arent hadoop, couch or hypertable"

What a relief (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547133)

Let's all back these guys so that they can sell us out a second time later down the road, when the community makes them successful again.

Re:What a relief (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#43548395)

Meanwhile, their work allows you to become successful, FOR FREE... so you know, they're definitely screwing you.

Explain, please? (1, Funny)

Quirkz (1206400) | about a year ago | (#43547283)

I was just coming around to the idea I might explore MariaDB next time I needed to do something, where normally I've been turning to MySQL. Is SkySQL replacing that, now?

Also, do any of the large, inexpensive web hosts (hostgator, dreamhost, servint, etc.) provide either of these alternatives yet? Because frankly I'm not going to do a lot of personal configuration or pay a lot extra just for the novelty.

Re:Explain, please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548121)

That would be perfect. I mean, what kind of name is MariaDB?
Would you use MariaDB if your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend was called Maria?

Re:Explain, please? (3, Informative)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43548147)

SkySQL is a commercial entity that uses MySQL and now MariahDB - http://www.skysql.com/ [skysql.com]

They are replacing MySQL with MariahDB for their hosted solutions and throwing financial backing at the project. MariahDB is not going away. I would encourage you to look into PostgreSQL however as an alternative: http://www.postgresql.org/ [postgresql.org]

Model for the new FLOSS business model (5, Interesting)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year ago | (#43547347)

1. Create a popular but flawed FLOSS product (MySQL).
2. Build a business atop flawed FLOSS product (MySQL AB).
3. Ca$h out by selling your baby to formerly glorious tech company on the ropes (FGTCOTR, aka SUN).
4. Profit!
5. Leave FGTCOTR after a tasteful waiting period to start your own company DOING THE SAME THING YOU JUST SOLD because you can fork the OSS codebase you just sold.
6. Take public potshots at EVIL Corp (who very predictably acquired FGTCOTR) for mismanaging the baby you sold (because EVIL), while flogging your fork of the product you sold as a viable alternative (FLOSS, to cloak yourself in the veneer of legitimacy because you can live off of steps 3 and 4).
7. Reunite to form company that does the same thing the company you sold for big $$$ did, to compete with the product you willingly relinquished control over.
8. GOTO #1?

I can't decide whether to admire Monty for successfully gaming the system, or condemn him as an amoral manipulator who wasted no time screwing over the very people he sold out to at the earliest possible opportunity.

Grudgingly, I lean toward admiration. Nicely done, sir.

That said, I avoid MySQL as the half-baked relational DB pretender that it is and use PostgreSQL whenever possible. Better technology without the drama. I have never regretted PgSQL once, MySQL many times.

Re:Model for the new FLOSS business model (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548549)

You forgot step 6b - appeal to large government bureaucracy begging them to make an exception to copyright laws to allow you to take back the freedoms that you have already granted that allows you to pull this shit in the first place all because you are selfish bastards.

I'm sick of the whining. Software development = $ (1)

exabrial (818005) | about a year ago | (#43547353)

Ok honestly, what has Oracle done with MySQL that has been so bad? They've been pretty good stewards. MySQL 5.6 came out and even included full text search for InnoDB. I'm pleased with the product and it's progress.

This smells like the Jenkins/Hudson gayness... All these projects are forking because of big bad Oracle, before Oracle has even done anything. Good god, the open source community is LUCKY to have a corporation that is willing to sink dollars into an open source project. If that means giving up a little control, I'm cool with that. If they try some bullshit, we can fork it. Stop the friggen whining until then. You cry wolf enough times and the community isn't going to be there when you really do need them.

So I have a brilliant friggen plan. How about the circle jerk of founders in the SkySQL project go to Oracle and offer and olive branch? There would be rainbows and unicorns and one code base. Wouldn't that be best for the community?

Re:I'm sick of the whining. Software development = (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43547651)

bad ... good ... pleased ... smells like ... gayness... because ... bad ... Good ... LUCKY ... willing ... means ... little ... cool ... try ... bullshit ... can ... whining ... cry ... community ... really ... need ... brilliant ... circle jerk ... offer ... rainbows ... unicorns ... best ... community?

Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

Re:I'm sick of the whining. Software development = (4, Interesting)

shugah (881805) | about a year ago | (#43547667)

I think the FOSS community would probably have been fine if MySQL had remained with an independent (and profitable) Sun. But Oracle is not Sun. For me, personally, the Oracle v. Google lawsuit pretty much gave notice that Oracle would go scorched earth on anyone who used "their" open source properties in ways they didn't approve of.

Re:I'm sick of the whining. Software development = (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43548249)

The main one is holding back security and critical bug fixes. That's a killer in itself. No, MySQL users are not going to migrate to Oracle, ever. Oracle cannot expand their business, and its future is looking very grim as legacy applications on late 90s early '00s Sun boxen are being replaced by significantly faster and cheaper x86 in racks.

MySQL does not need Oracle, nor does it need a big corp. It is the biggest DB community on the planet, whether you like the DB or not.

reassure users? (1)

backdoc (416006) | about a year ago | (#43547371)

"The merger will provide a stronger rival to MySQL, so reassuring users who are worried about Oracle's future plans for the database"

Aren't they the same guys that sold MySQL the first time? How will the new alliance be any more reassuring?

Re:reassure users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547785)

Not only did they sell it first time, but they sold it when it was version 5.0, widely regarded as a supremely bad version of MySQL (and one that, sadly, gave it a lot of its reputation to this day). Soon after Sun purchased MySQL AB, they released 5.1. Monty had this [blogspot.com] to say. A quote: "Don't expect that all critical bugs that you may have encountered in 5.0 to be fixed in 5.1. Even if we have fixed a big majority of the bugs from 5.0 some really critical ones still haven't been addressed."

To compare with what happened in later years, have a look at Wikipedia's list of milestones [wikipedia.org] and look for patterns. Look, for example, at the mentions of bad or broken features, and see where they are. They congregate around the time MySQL was purchased by Sun. Then they peter out, and in the last few years there is no mention of bad quality and lots of additions of new features

So, I think it's pretty clear that MySQL has only improved since Monty gave up control, despite the unfortunately entrenched (and somewhat deserved) bad reputation MySQL had at that time and was inherited by Sun. Time will tell if his inverse midas touch continues to destroy his current project.

Soap Opera. (1, Interesting)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#43547459)

This soap opera is getting way too confusing. Way too much money, way too many project names. In the end, whatever they come up with to circumvent Oracle, they will just sell to the next highest bidder for another billion, then rinse and repeat.

It seems the only way for us to circumvent all this BS is not to use anything affiliated with Oracle, MySQL, or its creators.

Re:Soap Opera. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43547715)

I wouldn't go that far, but at the very least look into PostgreSQL and see what it can do -- I mean, doesn't look like it's going to be upended anytime soon.

Also, this whole mess is what happens when folks settle for non-free binary blobs in their otherwise free & open source software.

Re:Soap Opera. (1)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43548159)

This soap opera is getting way too confusing.

What else would you expect from a bunch of DBA's?

So one might say... (1)

Azure Flash (2440904) | about a year ago | (#43547529)

SkySQL is a sequel to MySQL. Whose sequel? Your sequel? My sequel? SkySQL.

I just love open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43547609)

Another branch of a product that has already been branched... I can just see where this is going.

Fan-friggin-tastic.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>