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!

The Ups and Downs of MySQL AB

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the pick-the-battles-to-fight dept.

Linux Business 210

Wannabe Code Monkey writes "Forbes has an article about a recent MySQL deal with SCO and the reaction from the open source community: "It's been a rough week for Marten Mickos, the chief executive of open source database maker MySQL AB. First his most dreaded rival, Oracle acquired a company that supplies a key piece of MySQL's software, a move that could make life difficult for Uppsala, Sweden-based MySQL, which has the most popular open source database. If that wasn't bad enough, Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group, a company reviled by fans of Linux and other open source software.""

cancel ×

210 comments

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

Confused about licensing (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797356)

I'm confused. Even if SCO acquires a component, isn't the final F/OSS release of that component still F/OSS per the GPL or whatever license it was released with?

Take said component and keep refining it.

If this is a future worry, adapt the license so that other OSS components remain OSS if future versions are commercialized.

Re:Confused about licensing (3, Interesting)

BVis (267028) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797383)

If taking SCO's money is what keeps the product viable, and if the final product is still F/OSS, who really gives a hoot? SCO's money spends just as easy as anything else, and the OSS community hasn't lost anything.

We don't live in a world of moral absolutes. Businesses sometimes have to be practical at the expense of muddying the moral waters. I'm sure that if they could have avoided even taking SCO's calls they would have, but taking the money enables them to be a going concern.

Besides, the more SCO spends, the faster they will inevitably go out of business, so that can only be a good thing, right?

Re:Confused about licensing (0)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797761)

The problem that people were having was how close the companies were getting. MySQL seemed proud to work closely with SCO, which was strange. Not necessarily bad, but some MySQL DB users are understandably concerned about the stability of MySQL AB.

Re:Confused about licensing (2, Interesting)

toddbu (748790) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797865)

We don't live in a world of moral absolutes.

Agreed. But when SCO starts making money through this partnership and then turns around and uses that cash to attack the same community that SCO despises, does that make any sense?

SCO not only burned bridges, they set the entire landscape on fire. For a leading player in the F/OSS movement to then hook up with them is very disturbing. Should we expect MySQL developers to suddenly be paid by SCO? What would SCO expect in return?

When I heard the news, I sent an email to MySQL telling them that I thought they were treading on very dangerous ground. If MySQL was surprised by the reaction of the community then maybe they really don't understand their base of support. I kind of feel that way anyway, since last I looked the only way to give them any money is to buy a license. I'd gladly click on a "Donate using PayPal" link and have suggested that they provide a paid club that people can sign up for to help support the cause, but so far neither has appeared.

Re:Confused about licensing (5, Interesting)

team99parody (880782) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797406)

The problem is that MySQL's business depended on a dual-licensing model where they selling a proprietary-licensed version of MySQL. Sure, they could keep using the GPL'd InnoDB in the GPL'd version of MySQL; but they can not incorporate the GPL'd InnoDB in the proprietary MySQL.

Ironically, if Oracle insisted that future supported versions of InnoDB only be released as a GPL'd work - it could be one of the greates things for MySQL-the-GPL'd-product and one of the worst things to MySQL-the-company.

Re:Confused about licensing (2, Insightful)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797663)

The problem that MySQL DB is having right now is that it's too dependent on one company: MySQL AB. And that company is proving that it is not stable enough to count on.

If I were a MySQL DB user, I would be planning for an outcome that did not require MySQL AB, because the company might not be in the same form a year from now. Possibly even choose something else that has a stronger community behind it, or at least a stronger company behind it.

MySQL has a big community, but it's organized not around itself, but around MySQL AB. That may have to change.

Learn from the IBM case. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797452)

MySQL AB has all the licenses to MySQL.

They release it under a dual license.

Now they're accepting SCO money to "partner" with them to develop MySQL so it works better on SCO's server software.

Now, do a quick search for SCO & IBM & "Project Monterey". See the parallels? And SCO has sued THREE partners/customers over code use.

The question will come down to what contracts cover what money being spent in what ways to write what code and who owns what rights to what code.

Personally, I see this as just a way for SCO go try to get possession of the MySQL code base. Only an idiot would sign a developmental contract with SCO after everything that's been revealed from the court cases.

Re:Learn from the IBM case. (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797586)

MySQL AB has all the licenses to MySQL.

Just a terminology nit: MySQL AB neither has nor needs any licenses for MySQL. MySQL AB *owns* MySQL. They hold the copyrights, and issue licenses to others.

Now, do a quick search for SCO & IBM & "Project Monterey". See the parallels? And SCO has sued THREE partners/customers over code use.

Yeah, MySQL AB might want to think twice about doing business with a company with such a track record except for two things. First, based on the way MySQL AB's business model works, they have to have full ownership of the copyrights, or at least blanket permission to sublicense everything in any way they see fit. Unless their attorneys are flat incompetent, the language in the contract should be extremely clear and they should have little fear of losing a lawsuit (though that doesn't prevent them from getting sued). Second, SCO is already drowning in lawsuits they can't win. Odds are, the IBM suit will drive SCO into bankruptcy. Novell has a very good argument that SCO owes Novell nearly $30M (or is it $50M?) that SCO does not have. If there's anything left after IBM and Novell get through with SCO, Red Hat is still waiting in the wings with its own claims against SCO, and the Auto Zone case is out there as well. SCO is just about out of money, and although they've capped the legal fees in the IBM case, they're going to continue to bleed cash rapidly to fight Novell, and more cash to fight Red Hat and maybe Auto Zone when IBM ends. SCO is just about out of money, has massive legal bills still coming and little prospect of obtaining any cash.

MySQL AB is *very* unlikely to be sued by a company in such straits. No matter how insane the SCO management is, lawyers aren't going to take on a case they're not going to get paid for.

Re:Learn from the IBM case. (3, Insightful)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797771)

"No matter how insane the SCO management is, lawyers aren't going to take on a case they're not going to get paid for."

WRONG..it's called a Contingency case, they win they get paid, they lose they get nothing. This approach is very common in personal injury lawsuits.

The SCO case is a hybrid of this where Boise-Schiller took company stock as part of the fee, they win and the price goes up and they clean up, they lose SCO goes under they get only the cash part of the compensation.

Anyone getting involved that deeply with SCO must have a screw loose, SCO is just crazy enough to sue mySQL in hopes of keeping themselves alive a bit longer even after they lose to IBM (and appeal of course).

Re:Learn from the IBM case. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797910)

"No matter how insane the SCO management is, lawyers aren't going to take on a case they're not going to get paid for."

WRONG..it's called a Contingency case, they win they get paid, they lose they get nothing. This approach is very common in personal injury lawsuits.


I think that was his point. there's no way they would win anyway, so whether it's contingency or not the final $$ outcome for the lawyers would be 0. nobody would take it up.

Re:Learn from the IBM case. (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798090)

AFAIK the stock has been converted to up-front cash and there is no contingency provision.

Re:Learn from the IBM case. (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798145)

I know some was cashed out, But I think there is still some out there. It gets very complicated trying to follow SCO's crazy "plan", the IBM lawyers are certainly kept busy. We can check at Groklaw, someone (Pamela) will know if it was all cashed in.

Re:Learn from the IBM case. (1, Funny)

AnObfuscator (812343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797818)

Now they're accepting SCO money to "partner" with them to develop MySQL so it works better on SCO's server software.

uhhhh...

From GrokLaw's interview with Marten Mickos: [groklaw.net]
no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially

So, MySQL isn't accepting SCO money.

From The official Press Release [mysql.com] :
As part of the agreement, the companies will work together on a range of joint marketing, sales, training, business development and support programs that will benefit customers throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. Additionally, SCO will include a trial subscription to the MySQL Network enterprise database service with each new copy of SCO OpenServer -- and offer full MySQL Network subscriptions through its reseller channel.

So neither MySQL nor SCO is writing any special code -- they're just cooperating on marketing and training support.

From a Cnet article [com.com] on the subject:
Part of the bad blood in the suit stems from a flopped partnership called Project Monterey under which IBM, SCO and now-extinct Sequent agreed to create a version of Unix for Intel's Itanium processors. SCO shared expertise with IBM about how best to run Unix on Intel processors for that project, the suit said.

So, Project Monterey was a joint venture to rewrite an operating system for a new ISA. I fail to see any significant similarities between Project Monterey and the MySQL/SCO deal.

Nice FUD, though.

Re:Learn from the IBM case. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13798065)

no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially

So, MySQL isn't accepting SCO money.



ehmmm... - typically accepting money from someone doesn't mean that you are supporting them financially. Only giving them money would imply supporting them financially.

Hum... (-1, Offtopic)

jolas (829165) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797361)

dame it!!!

What piece are we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797375)

Forbes is a bit short on specifics - what crucial software piece was bought by Oracle. And more importantly - what license was it under?

Re:What piece are we talking about? (3, Informative)

lmfr (567586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797392)

Oracle acquired Innobase [slashdot.org] , maker of InnoDB.

Re:What piece are we talking about? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797405)

Time to fork Innobase right? Programmers, are you listening?

Re:What piece are we talking about? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797437)

Open source programmers know *SQUAT* about database storage engines.

rewrite innodb? here's a better solution (1)

kpharmer (452893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797751)

> Time to fork Innobase right? Programmers, are you listening?

Not likely this isn't simple code, this would take a long time to get up to speed on and really understand. Let alone enhance. Mysql wasn't able to write a transaction engine on their own - they had to licese one. Don't you think they would have written their own if they could?

But here's a great solution: mysql could use postgresql for its transaction layer. Imagine the benefits:
    - no licensing costs to pass on to mysql customers
    - improved query optimization
    - eliminates many of the annoying silent errors (truncations, conversions, etc)
    - should eliminate the postgresql-vs-mysql arguments
    - mysql could leverage from open-source momentum in postgresql
    - might improve mysql portability
    - might even allow users to easily port back & forth between postgresql & mysql
    - postgresql can't be purchased away

I'm pretty sure this would be the easiest plug-in replacement for innodb. On the other hand...doesn't SQLite now support transactions & MVCC? And along these lines, could mysql pick up greater scalability by using db2 & oracle as storage layers as well?

ken

Re:rewrite innodb? here's a better solution (2, Insightful)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797843)

But here's a great solution: mysql could use postgresql for its transaction layer.

An interesting point. One might wonder what it is that MySQL brings to the table if that happened though. Presumably, MySQL would bring nothing other than backwards compatibility with old applications. People would be jumping from MyGreSQL (or whatever this would be called) to the real PostgreSQL as fast as they could.

On the other hand...doesn't SQLite now support transactions & MVCC? And along these lines, could mysql pick up greater scalability by using db2 & oracle as storage layers as well?

MySQL has a commercial version to support. They can't charge someone a license fee and tell them to go elsewhere for a good storage engine. Anything in their GPL version needs to be in their commercial version. Therefore the only kind of code they can include is BSD-like, like PostgreSQL.

I guess they could have some kind of loosely-coupled interface that used another RDBMS as a backend, but again, what does MySQL provide? It would just be a SQL translator. It would be unable to optimize, plan, or execute queries, so that leaves what? Parsing? And then it's re-parsed by the other DB engine? That certainly won't impress anyone.

When a product gets to the point where it's ONLY possible value is backwards compatibility, people port the applications away quickly. [ insert MS Windows joke here * ]

* MS Windows doesn't really compare, since it's easy to replace a set of MySQL servers with a set of PostgreSQL servers, but not easy to replace a few hundred million installations of MS Windows.

Re:What piece are we talking about? (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797920)

A fork is possible. But what really needs to happen is the MySQL community needs to get it's act together and be independent of MySQL AB. There's a lot of community-building that needs to happen, because right now the whole development process is too dependent on MySQL AB.

This is not a fast process that a few good programmers can solve overnight. You need a few good programmers, a few good organizers, a few good decision makers, users involved on mailing lists, and a lot of time to figure out who does what and when they do it.

The project also needs direction. Will it be the same direction as when MySQL AB was calling the shots? If it changes direction, will the database cater to the same users?

Here's a potential problem I already see: You get all of the above requirements. Some of the decision makers think it's better to move in the direction of standards-compliance, strict error checking, consistency, and data integrity. The problem here is that they will always be chasing PostgreSQL, and their users will go elsewhere.

MySQL is kind of in a precarious position. If it gets "too good", it will compete with the likes of PostgreSQL and Oracle. They need to stay where they are, yet incrementally improve. It seems like any direction MySQL moves, the logical conclusion works against them.

Re:What piece are we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797394)

Ruby on Rails. Creative Commons.

Re:What piece are we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797786)

Well, you know, it helps if you actually read the article.

Article is flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797376)

This guy has obviously made up his mind about people who support opensource. And calling Groklaw 'ground zero for paranoia'? No wonder he writes for Forbes.

Re:Article is flamebait (4, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797541)

He made up his mind a long time ago. Do a search on google for "daniel lyons" fud.

You can pretty much dismiss claims made by him, Laura Didio and Rob Enderle.

Re:Article is flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797835)

Groklaw IS paranoid, ultra-biased slush. She just happens to be on the side of the good guys. I just wish she'd quit refuting arguments with intelligent quips like "oh yeah? YOU'RE the loser, Maureen" and "Ha! I bet those losers can't even spell GPL". It's just embarassing for the rest of us.

Bah! (3, Insightful)

TerminaMorte (729622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797380)

If that wasn't bad enough, Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group, a company reviled by fans of Linux and other open source software."
 
  Next on Forbes: How much negativity can we pack into one sentence? Find out!

another error (1)

redcone (838393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797493)

"Traditional software, like that sold by Microsoft, ships with the source code kept secret."

Forbes, unsurprisingly, doesn't get that traditonal software code was all open source--Richard Stallman created the GPL and the foundations of the open source movement as a response to companies like Microsoft that were locking their software behind restrictions he found unethical, immoral and against the shared community development model that charactericized early software development.

Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos (5, Informative)

anandpur (303114) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797381)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510112 11450706 [groklaw.net]

* no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially
* it was SCO seeking out the partnership, not the other way around
* MySQL had stopped supporting SCO in 2004
* MySQL did not put out the press release about the partnership. Mickos did provide a quotation for the press release however. Here's the press release in question, taken from MySQL's web site. http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html [mysql.com]

Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos (1, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797442)

don't forget last bullet point: MySQL did make a partnership with the lying, thieving, copyright violating stock fraudsters who are trying to steal Linux, extort money from users of Linux, sue their own customers who use Linux, and invalidate the GPL.
 
  Thus they are to be despised and use of their product is to be discontinued.

INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (2, Interesting)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797482)

I don't give a damn about his points, they are irrelevant.

Since SCO paid money to MySQL and offered development assistance to MySQL .. How do we know they will not try to pull a stunt of saying MySQL stole ideas or misappropriated their money to incorporate new features into MySQL?

This is my biggest concern. I no longer feel safe using MySQL. There is now a risk of getting sued by SCO down the line. Anyone who thinks this is not far fetched .. so is the Linux suit .. and once they lose that they need another scam to pump up their stock. Sorry they had to sign a deal with the devil. This company SCO has declared in the past that they don't think the GPL is a legally valid document. To me it's simply not worth it to deal with the hassle. Honestly as much as I hate their companies I rather use Oracle *puke* or Microsoft SQL Server *vomit* than MySQL at this point, because i dont have to worry about being sued.

Fortunately we don't have to choose commercial because we have great alternative open source databases we can use. Sorry MySQL it's time for us to say goodbye.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797680)

Errr, because that's ridiculously paranoid, and SCO Group will go out of money before that happens.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797733)

Why go with either big n expensive monsters?

Oracle is a huge monstrosity which pretty much should only be used when nothing else will do (and it works well in those cases)

MS SQL Svr works OK in some microsoft environments too (even if not /.'ers like it - mainly it's because it's a MS product), it's still a solution that works very well for a lot of places (it gets far too much criticism on here - just like anything MS made). However, it's not the universal solution to everything.

PostgreSQL lately is getting more popular. It's very good (better than all but perhaps Oracle/MSSQL/DB2), and the price is right :) Even with the v5 features in MySQL, I have no plans to make use of it. It's not just licensing/IP concerns, it's always been a data integrity thing, lack of features (which are starting to appear) and such. The only reason I can see to go with it is that lots of cheap "LAMP" hosting exists and lots of PHP apps (forums and what not) will run on that pretty much out of the box (it's easy and cheap).

Of course there's lots more alternatives (I've given a try to Matisse lately). But PostgreSQL is really amazing. I'm planning on making changes to my .Net code to use it - not exclusively - but as well as MS SQL. It makes sense if I want it to run on Mono too - why use MS SQL then? Or companies that us IIS/ASP.Net can host that way, and not have to buy MS SQL server if they don't need it (expensive) and run PostgreSQL instead (yes, I'm also aware of MSDE/SQL Server Express - which works quite well in many cases).

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (1)

machineghost (622031) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797807)

Fortunately we don't have to choose commercial because we have great alternative open source databases we can use.


N00b question: what open source databases can we use, that have a similiar level of power to GPL MySQL and all the commercial DBs?

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (1)

AnObfuscator (812343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797934)

N00b question: what open source databases can we use, that have a similiar level of power to GPL MySQL and all the commercial DBs?

The BSD-licensed PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] is actually *more* powerful than MySQL. Depending on your needs, it's worth looking into.

there are others, but Postgre is MySQL's primary FLOSS competitor.

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798032)

A minor nitpick, but it's "PostgreSQL", or "postgres" for short. It's never "Postgre".

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (4, Informative)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798018)

PostgreSQL. A short list of benefits:
- MVCC reduces need for locking, often called "better than row-level locking"
- Also has row level locking
- ACID compliant
- transactions, and savepoints (which are SQL nested transactions)
- point in time recovery (PITR) allows "time-travel" and parallel timelines. It's a little much to explain here, but if you encounter a problem and notice it a week later, you can go back in time, prevent the problem, and replay everything else that happened that week. All the good and none of the bad from a sci-fi book :)
- VERY extensible: you can make user-defined functions in any of PL/pgSQL, PL/perl, PL/python, PL/java, C, or SQL. And if that's not enough, you can write another procedural language to support your favorite language.
- You can make a user-defined aggregate function using any of those languages.
- User-defined types
- triggers
- views
- subselects
- query rewriting rules (which can be used to make any view updatable/insertable)
- constraints
- good, well-maintained, and BSD licensed replication software available.

New in 8.1 (which is beta now):
- Two-phase commit (2PC)
- IN/OUT/INOUT parameters to functions
- rudimentary table partitioning
- bitmap index scans
- autovacuum intelligently automates a long standing maintenence procedure, making the database easier to administer.
- SQL ROLES
- more options for row-level locking

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day? (2, Insightful)

AnObfuscator (812343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797988)

From Grandparent:
no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially

From you:
Since SCO paid money to MySQL and offered development assistance to MySQL

did you READ the GP post?! Let me reiterate. no money went to SCO from MySQL .

Say it with me, you and all the other people who posted the exact same claim below:
no money went to SCO from MySQL

Also, NO CODE was shared. No development assistance is being shared. The ONLY thing the companies are sharing are marketing, training, and end user support. That's it.

Please stop spreading FUD against MySQL. the product and company have done a fantastic job of spreading FLOSS into areas where it was previously unknown, such as such as windows, solaris, and other "big iron unix" web servers. They should be applauded that they are, like a good company, continuing to support their end users, even the ones who run an unfortunate choice of OS.

Re:Groklaw Interviews MySQL AB CEO Marten Mickos (3, Insightful)

tyler_larson (558763) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797641)

The backlash against MySQL for dealing with SCO is harsh, probably unwarranted, but, most importantly, very effective at conveying the desired message: don't talk to SCO. Don't even return their phone calls.

SCO, you remember, is a UNIX company--they don't write all their own software, which is why their OS is POSIX. They absolutely rely on cooperation with the community to make their product marketable.

Now, they're blacklisted. Companies and projects that use community-driven models (or even market to such organizations) are clearly and unequivocally forbidden to associate in any way with SCO. It's just not worth risking the sort of backlash that hit MySQL.

Marten Mickos sounded like a corporate sleeze (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797642)

He didn't answer direct questions directly. If he had been really up front, nobody would be upset. It wasn't a really big deal. Mickos shot himself in the foot by sounding like some corporate bigwig obfuscating around the truth.

Let their money be drained (2, Funny)

schestowitz (843559) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797387)

Gosh, SCO have not run out of money yet? I thought the Web site implied they have: http://www.linuxstolescocode.com/ [linuxstolescocode.com] (hint: see error page).

SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797397)

You mean to say that this guy had absolutely no idea where SCO stood on their position of OSS and the GNU GPL? (Then again they keep saying something else all the time)

I use Gentoo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797402)

...how does this affect me?

They gots to eat ! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797410)



Money brings food to the table. It's been proven that communism ain't gonna work for long, not even Marx', and those that can, get out when they can. That rumble in the tummy ain't fun, rock starz.

MySQL has some business strategy... (1, Insightful)

koh (124962) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797411)

1) Sell out to SCO,
2) Have Oracle buy the most feature-full database implementation we managed to get our hands on,
3) Piss off Open Source users,
4) Kill off PHP (since it's the only thing that still gets us going...)
5) ...
6) DEFICIT!

Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (1)

Directrix1 (157787) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797500)

The most feature full. Try Firebird or PostgresQL.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (1)

CptWheel (227064) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797927)

few years back (~1998/9?) I was asked to replace now-dead-sql with mysql or pgsql and I ended up with mysql, because it was much better suited for _simple_web_applications_. I didn't need transactions and needed to support less expensive white boxes, where memory hog like pg simply would not fit or would not perform well. until now, I have never been told it was bad choice by anyone using the servers, custommers, partners etc.

before suggesting other dbs one should carefully pick replacement. I wouldn't tell the following if I had no experience with pg. I don't want to turn this into mysql/pgsql flame: my story might not be easy to hear for pg-lovers, feel warned.

few moths ago, I got a job... find out why simple LAPP (linux-apache-pgsql-postfix:) fails randomly after few days. I have changed distribution from slack to woody. I have changed hardware once, then even migrated from intel to amd. moved to sarge. checked about 5 different kernel versions and zillion configuration options when compiling kernel and I did used "vendor" stable kernels as well. all machines are dying randomly, record is 19 days. well over 25 LAMP servers I give much less attention than to LAPPs work smoothly with 500+ days uptime, whether you take system or mysql server uptime. I migrated the pgsql to one stable LAMP server (running about one year at the moment) and it went down in 2 days. btw the went-down means that machine becomes simply unresponsive and even netconsole.ko is silent!! (printk over udp, worth lokking at).

have you ever repaired pg databases after disk crash? and.. how about pgdump between different versions...? and how do you like pg docs? lol, don't ever recommend me pgsql.

I don't need more featurefull. I need stable server. I'm willing to code something better, use lock-free structures, and I am willing to write more sql queries to implement some "oneliners-in-pgsql". and I build-in some regular data integrity checks into my apps. but I'm not going to use/rely on constantly failing triggers, currupted tables and killed servers. thank god that mysql is gpl. and no, I don't care if sco prays to mickos to port mysql back to sco again.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (2, Informative)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798091)

I can only assume you grossly misused PostgreSQL or some other software on the machine. PostgreSQL has a legendary reputation for reliability and stability, which has held up perfectly for me for years (no postgresql failures ever).

And if a disk crashes, you can hardly blame PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL has several great online backup systems available: Slony-I (repliaction), point-in-time recovery (PITR), and pg_dump. Use them.

You are also the first person I've heard describe PostgreSQL as a "memory hog".

My guess is that you made no attempt to diagnose the problem. I doubt your problems are related to a PostgreSQL bug. You could have reported your problems on pgsql-general, and I'm sure people there would have helped you as long as you provided good information.

MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13798273)

Nice little anecdote you got there. Too bad you're talking out of your ass or you're just too stupid to admin a database.

Your methods to diagnose a problem are truly stellar. Randomly changing distributions and processor types (wtf?) and poking around in the dark is really gonna help.

Dimwit.

Re:MySQL has some business strategy... (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797538)

The most hyped one os probably the better description, before MySQL, during MySQLs absolute heydey and even today, better OSS dbs exist with more features which do not carry the hidden 500 USD pricetag. But none of them have MySQLs hype engine behind it, they have one advantage though, they work!

Alternative RDBMS (0)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797418)

I think it's time now to give a closer look to some other open source RDBMS.
It took years to bring MySQL to where it is now. It will take hours to lay it down!
And SCO could also start sending letters to companies to claim money for MySQL licenses! :-)

Re:Alternative RDBMS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797533)

Databases (and the relational model) have failed. We should all move on to something superior (Rails & AJAX).

a key piece ?? (2, Informative)

six (1673) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797429)

Although InnoDB is quite a niece piece of work, I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server software. It is just one of the *many* storage backends supported by MySQL, and it's not by far the most used (99% of the MySQL installs i've seen only use the internally developped MyISAM storage engine which btw is the default one ...

And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb ...

yep (4, Insightful)

kpharmer (452893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797632)

> Although InnoDB is quite a niece piece of work, I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server
> software. It is just one of the *many* storage backends supported by MySQL, and it's not by far
> the most used (99% of the MySQL installs i've seen only use the internally developped MyISAM
> storage engine which btw is the default one ...

I think that's primarily due to all the legacy 3.* mysql databases out there: not because people are running 4.01 and want to keep using myisam.

There are legitimate times to use myisam, but aside from read-only reporting (which mysql isn't very good at), or very high-volume read-mostly content management that's about it. Backends for tools like bugzilla, for wikis, etc should be on innodb:
    - it's easier to develop the app (don't have to reinvent transactions)
    - the application code is more portable
    - you avoid data corruption problems problems with buggy do-it-yourself transaction code
    - you get to rely on declarative referential integrity to help ensure that 100% of the data in the database complies with the rules of the model

> And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb ...

true - anyone who knows enough about databases to know why they should be using transactions also knows why they should be using views, stored procedures (occasionally), triggers (occasionally), and have an optimizer capable of joining 5 tables without a performance hit.

If mysql looses innodb they are in very deep trouble. Before they licensed innodb, MySQL AB insisted that:
    - 99% of the programmers didn't need transactions
    - that "real programmers" could easily write that code themselves in the app layer
    - that all quality checks (pk/fk constraints) belonged in the app layer anyway
Once they licensed innodb they changed that tune completely
    - declaring themselves an "Enterprise Database"
    - the only database people needed
    - bragged about their fast paced development (even tho it was purchasing not development)
    - buried all their previous comments about transactions not being necessary

So, now that they've been admitting that transactions are vital - won't they look stupid loosing them? At that point, why put *any* database on mysql? Postgresql/Firebird/SQLite are all *freer* anyway. And it isn't like MySQL is going to suddenly come up with a replacement to Innodb - that's the code they couldn't write themselves before, it's the most complex code in mysql, and they apparently don't have people capable of writing it.

SAP (1)

RahoulB (178873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798043)

Do they still need InnoDB? I thought that was the point of integrating the SAP DB engine - so they get transactions, relational integrity plus stored procs (coming real soon now)?

Re:SAP (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798110)

SAP DB is very, very different from MySQL. They can't just bolt it in and have working transactions. I haven't seen the source code for either, but I've heard that MySQL's source code is a real mess, and that SAP DB's source code is a real mess in comparison to MySQL's source code.

I heard that SAP DB is built for mainframes, and that all the variables are cryptic, abbreviated german, and that it uses a customized build system that is really hacked together. Good luck finding programmers to work on that.

Re:a key piece ?? (2, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797647)

I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server software.

I would, because it was responsible for most of the "new" features MySQL was bragging about.

And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb .

You misspelled "will have to" (excepting Firebird et al).

Re:a key piece ?? (2, Interesting)

CodeRx (31888) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797790)

The purchase of Innobase by Oracle is a big problem for MySQL AB. If they really want to be a grown-up database vendor, they are going to have to eventually write their own MVCC backend. And they can't easily fork off the GPL InnoDB as they make the vast amount of their money by selling non-GPL licenses of MySQL.

There are other backends for MySQL, but MyISAM doesn't work well with multiple readers+writers due to table locking / lack of MVCC, doesn't offer transactions, etc - and the BDB backend, the closest backend to InnoDB feature-wise is still not considered production quality after many many years.

From what I have seen, InnoDB has become the more popular table handler for new projects and is definately the table handler MySQL AB promotes the most. MyISAM tends to be relegated to mostly read-only tables and legacy use. I really like MySQL's concept of being able to use the right tool for the job when it comes to table handlers, but one of their best tools just got swiped by the 1000lb gorilla next-door! (Oracle may still let them license InnoDB commercially, but can stop at anytime)

Your comment on Postgresql is spot on, and with postgres getting so much easier for new users to get into (auto vacuum, native windows support), Postgresql's complete lack of annoying licensing issues, etc - things still look good for open source databases.

Re:a key piece ?? (2, Insightful)

Bulmakau (918237) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798287)

Although InnoDB is quite a niece piece of work, I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server software. It is just one of the *many* storage backends supported by MySQL, and it's not by far the most used (99% of the MySQL installs i've seen only use the internally developped MyISAM storage engine which btw is the default one ...
Hmm. Not true.
There are indeed several (not many) storage engines with MySQL. However the two most used are InnoDB and MySQL. And InnoDB is usually used when MySQL is not appropriate - which is in write-heavy applications. I would agree that most installations use mySQL and not innodb, but as a secondary engine it's a VERY important part of MySQL.
And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb ...
What do they know ;)

Well now (1)

HoodCrowd (783572) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797475)

Postgres, baby.

Re:Well now (2, Informative)

codegen (103601) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797491)

LAMP becomes LAPP

Re:Well now (1)

Directrix1 (157787) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797517)

Or with Firebird you could go with FLAP.

Re:Well now (2, Funny)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798133)

A brighter LAMP: Linux Apache Middleware PostgreSQL

Re:Well now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13798239)

Actually, I use FreeBSD... FAPP FAPP FAPP!! Slashdot sez: Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling.

SCO is going out of business (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797485)

SCO is losing business and not gaining any more business. Why would Marten take the chance of alienating his user base for the sake of a few more bucks from SCO, risking his entire business? It's not like the database field isn't competitive.
-russ

Re:SCO is going out of business (1)

hol (89786) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797892)

So that SCO's customers can make the move to Open Source more easily. SCO is falling behind on the technical curve, but has a large customer base that's rather open source averse. This move by Martens legitimizes his product in the eyes of the SCO user base (not being pinko commie unamerican hackers), and those users will undoubtedly see that open source is not second-rate software. As SCO continues its decline to oblivion, this increases the chances that those customers will choose an open source os to migrate to, rather than Windows.

BTW, so why not bash MySQL for running on Windows too? What prevented customers from just compiling the MySQL source code on SCO? Nothing - it probably ran there. The money SCO paid for something that probably already ran on their product just takes money out of their litigation war chest, and that's a good thing in my eyes.

Oracle is MySQL's most dreaded rival? (4, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797487)

I honestly don't know anyone who could actually say that with a straight face.

Larry Ellison (3, Insightful)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797594)

Don't like Microsoft? Well wait till Larry Ellison starts playing hardball. This man is ruthless and there aren't many people who disagree with that statement. His goal is to be the richest man in the world. Gates is still just a nerd at heart. MySQL only indirectly competes with Microsoft. But MySQL is directly competing with Oracle. Sooner or later they will probably find themselves in the gun-sites of Larry and it won't be pretty.

MySQL knows this and that's why they recently declared that they never intend to go after Oracle's customer base. Because they know if they even so much as think about it Larry will eat them for lunch.

oh well ... (1)

ciderpunk (611927) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797494)

I s'pose that us "fans of Linux and other open source software" have a get out clause in that we could take MySQL's existing codebase under the GPL and develop it the way we want, free from SCO influence.

Of course it'll probably turn out that SCO wrote MySQL at some point and we'll all have to start using postgres [postgresql.org] instead.

BTW: I think the "important bit of software" made by Innobase in the article is the InnoDB table storage engine (cf. this slashdot article [slashdot.org] ).

I actually work for SCO... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797529)

I actually work for SCO.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some people belive anythng they hear.

Re:I actually work for SCO... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797582)

This is not Fark.com, people! /not a trap, either

Dan Lyons at his finest. (3, Funny)

DjReagan (143826) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797558)

"It was classic Groklaw, ripe with paranoia and nonsensical conspiracy theories, and replete with loads of self-righteous huffing and puffing about morality."

Hello Pot? This is Kettle.

Doesn't worry me much (2, Interesting)

g_dunn (921640) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797565)

If the community decides MySQL is now the work of the devil, it's not like there aren't other solutions out there, among them just using current MySQL versions. The project will just branch off from the last open source release before the switch to Evil Commercialization (TM). The license does support this, doesn't it? I must confess, I'm not exactly sure what license MySQL uses for it's releases.

There are also plenty of other SQL options out there. Postgres is one I use for various things, and I've found it to be more powerful and more effecient than MySQL. The only drawback is that alot of apps out of the box don't support it.

Of course, that would change if everyone stopped using MySQL.

That's one thing I love about open source: The power of choice

Re:Doesn't worry me much (4, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798288)

If the community decides MySQL is now the work of the devil

I could care less about "the community" - but I decided long ago that MySQL wasn't worth it. I've been using/promoting PostgreSQL for years, and have written some rather large projects (EG: 100+ tables, millions of records) with it very, very happily.

Advantages of Postgres:

1) Many, many MANY features in common with "enterprise" database products,

2) Open License lets you do pretty much anything you like, commercial or free.

3) Good documentation

4) Very solid - in 6 years of use, I've only had a problem ONCE with postgres on a machine with bad memory.

5) Helpful community support.

6) Comes pre-installed with most server-based distros. EG: RedHat

MySQL's advantages

1) Sounds good as part of "LAMP"

2) Uses "easier" administration, EG: "connect DBNAME" instead of the more terse "\c DBNAME". (but requires more typing)

3) Licensed under the GPL. (which restricts your use in any commercial product you distribute)

4) Fewer features means there's less to learn (???)

I switched to PG years ago, and I've never looked back.

Does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797573)

Does this mean that I have to buy a license for MySQL from SCO now or risk SCO threats to take me to court?

It's just not worth it anymore... (1)

kronocide (209440) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797610)

Yes, MySQL has some unknown kind of business relationship with SCO so now they pwn our souls and we will have to pay for all your open source software and our families will have to start working 12-hour days at Microsoft for no pay. I hate those MySQL traitors, they've spoiled everything! Farewell, cruel world!! *bang*

Typical Lyons Nonsense (3, Insightful)

tclark (140640) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797577)

The article's author is just spouting more of his standard nonsense. Lyons doesn't get free software and he's pissed at those of us who do get it. Clicking on a link to a Lyons article never seems to justify the effort spent on the click.

Lay down with dogs... (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797601)

wake up with fleas as the old saying goes. If MySCOql didn't want to get labeled as a sco whore, they shouldn't be sleeping with them. They knew what the deal would mean to them.

Incidentally, I've switched my Sun servers to postgres. I don't want *ANYTHING* to do with sco, mysql, or any of the dirty bastards that associate with them.

Re:Lay down with dogs... (1)

houseofzeus (836938) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797631)

That's a bit unlucky then isn't it, what given Postgre have the same deal with SCO.

Re:Lay down with dogs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797662)

Next time, use "My$QL". It's much better.

Re:Lay down with dogs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13798261)

I hope you don't ever eat at McDonald's then. Or use the services of any other SCO customers.

Infantile twerps (1)

Wolfbone (668810) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797604)

Jones and others' talk of "hypocrisy" and "treachery" is childish and ignorant. If they think that their facile SCO-hating and witch hunting as the clown Darl McBride inexplicably attempts to bash his company's brains out against the wall of IBM is somehow doing more for FLOSS than Marten Mickos has [economic-majority.com] , they are completely deluded.

I don't see a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797638)

Taking money off thieving scum and pumping it into something better? Where's the beef? If you had a chance to take a pile of legit cash from a thief and pour it into a reasonably useful and helpful project, what would you do?

I say we all try and get SCO to sign up with our projects for cash - every penny they spend elsewhere is a penny they can't spend on litigation.

Go MySQL! Bleed the fuckers dry!

Stay the course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797679)

...with PostgreSQL. Never had a need for mysql, it didnt have the required functionality/features PGSQL had circa PGSQL ver. 6.x, and since then, PGSQL has just gotten better, and mysql has had to play catch-up, and use 3rd parties to implement native features that PGSQL implemented in-house, 'nuff said.

Popularity was never an indicator of how well something works, look at the proliferation of Microsoft Windows.

Flame away, but you know in your hearts PGSQL IS better than mysql. You're just not ready to accept it yet.

SCO deal is irrelevant (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797695)

If SCO want to throw some money at MySQL for commercial support, then so what?. It might hasten SCO's demise, and the money can be used for bug fixing instead of lining some lawyer's pockets.

Thanks MySQL! (3, Funny)

matchboy (519044) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797720)

Dear MySQL,

Ever since you and joined forces [slashdot.org] , my PostgreSQL hosting and consulting business has gone up. On top of that, several existing customers have begun asking how they can migrate their applications from MySQL to PostgreSQL. While I am happy to hear that you finally got yourself some stored procedures and other advanced features... it saddens me that you're doing business with a company (SCO) that thinks that one of your business models is unconstitutional. You are tainted now. However, I really just wanted to say thanks for the extra work that have you provided me. It's no secret that being a professional PostgreSQL consultant is going to be a highly valuable skill in the coming few years...there is already a shortage [ittoolbox.com] . Thanks for sending people to the world's most advanced open source database server!

Former MySQL fan,
Me

Agenda? (2, Insightful)

burnin1965 (535071) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797722)

...noisy fanatics in the open source software community...

...die-hard open-source zealots...

...it's a holy war...

...ripe with paranoia and nonsensical conspiracy theories, and replete with loads of self-righteous huffing and puffing about morality...

...open source crunchies...


Hmm, I'm sure this guy isn't working from an agenda, he is definitely not thinking from some squewed hair brained bias, then again....

...Open source fans hate SCO for drumming up trouble...


Oh, so thats what it is to demand money from people so they can keep what is rightfully theirs. And here I thought the correct term for demanding money from people to leave them alone was extortion. And looking back through history it seems the hard working people of this planet usually get pretty steamed up over extortion and have taken down or defied criminal and governmental organizations who commited extortion crimes. And I do believe that extortion is still a crime so SCO is not "drumming up trouble" they are running an extortion racket.

burnin

So, let me get this straight... (1)

kronocide (209440) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797729)

This guy has given you a fast, stable database, that you can run and use for free as you please. And now because he has committed himself to making a version for SCO, you feel entitled to giving him crap? Okay... the Linux d00ds of today really need to try working for a living sometime.

Re:So, let me get this straight... (1)

kpharmer (452893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797816)

> This guy has given you a fast, stable database, that you can run and use for
> free as you please. And now because he has committed himself to making a
> version for SCO, you feel entitled to giving him crap? Okay... the Linux d00ds
> of today really need to try working for a living sometime.

ah, no - more like:

This guy has played a bait & switch with a database - at first giving it away for free, then changing the licensing (using linking definitions that contradict GPL's FAQ) to hook users in.

Then he defended bizarre deficiencies in the product by arguing that nobody needs transactions, views, stored procs, triggers, accurate exceptions, referential integrity, etc anyway.

Then he gets lucky and licenses all the most valuable parts of the current product from another company (innodb).

Then he cuts a deal with SCO to make a little cash - which helps SCO also stay in business and continue to try to destroy the GPL.

Then Oracle buys Innodb - revealing that the mysql now is just an empty husk with nothing to offer. Leaving a lot of database developers out there saying - well, duh - tell me once again why you aren't using firebird, ingres, postgresql, sqlite?

Re:So, let me get this straight... (1)

kronocide (209440) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797968)

So, he's given you a fast and stable database for free. Or what part of what you just said contradicted that?

The way I remember it, free software is a lot about contribution. So if you're not contributing code to MySQL or sending in bug fixes, shut up and be glad they're giving you a free database. If you don't like it then don't use it, it's really very simple. But if you're not a contributor, you really have no platform from which to moralize.

Re:So, let me get this straight... (1)

kpharmer (452893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798034)

> So, he's given you a fast and stable database for free. Or what part of what you just said contradicted that?

> The way I remember it, free software is a lot about contribution. So if you're
> not contributing code to MySQL or sending in bug fixes, shut up and be glad
> they're giving you a free database. If you don't like it then don't use it,
> it's really very simple. But if you're not a contributor, you really have no
> platform from which to moralize.

1. why would I contribute code to a dual-licensed product for someone else to make money on, without any compensation?
2. The product isn't free - mysql ab's position on linking is bizarre and contradicts the gpl faq. Their license has changed over time. There's no reason to assume it won't become increasingly more difficult to avoid paying a fee.
3. The current cost is $600 / year - likely to go up now that oracle owns innodb
4. Many developers have unfortunately embedded mysql in otherwise good products - which taints them with possible quality errors (silent errors, truncations, etc) as well as confusing future costs.
5. The company has been involved in misinforming the public about database best practices in order to cover their deficiencies. Telling programmers to write their transaction logic is like telling programmers that built-in testing is bad, they should just eye-ball the data. And it completely opens them up to criticism.
6. I often bump into the product in commercial settings where developers have used the database, then expect me to pick up support for it. First thing I do is insist that the database be moved to just about any other product. What a pain in the ass!

The gist of your lame argument is that you can't criticize something unless you're personally involved. What garbage. That's like saying we can't say that microsoft is wrong in trying to implement DRM unless we're employees of the company. bleh.

Use PostgreSQL (1)

pigiron (104729) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797833)

MySQL has always been a joke. PostgreSQL is a full featured database system with stored procedures and a robust locking model that supports ACID transactions. Get a real open source database. Get PostgreSQL.

Re:Use PostgreSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797945)

I agree.
Work would be much easier in PostGreSQL.

If they ever wanted / needed to substitute for mysql, all they had to do would be to cripple the instruction set, and hardwire "quickfix" command resolution - as mysql did.

Or make a more intelligent "deployment subset solution", or some other marketbabble, for essentially the same thing done smarter - with configurable extension handles, or "runtime subset compilation", or somesuch...

Maybe they already have. It's been a year and a 1/2 since I've messed with PostgreSql. My present subemployment has been developing a market system that "has to be" in mysql - due to ISPs constraints. <whine> No subqueries, and quirky null-field evaluation, for example, can make life as a tecno-serf quite 'interesting' <\\ whine>

As usual, it means that MySQL, which does charge for any sort of commercial use an amount that is reasonable - if compared to prince's ransoms charged by the "big boys" - is now officially defunct, from a common joe programming viewpoint. Same as RedHat. And Mandrake/driva/Conectiva aren't as highly regarded as they were.

We need mo'betta database systems/engines. That means OSource, well documented, easy to learn/use. Collaborative. Fully Wikkied. Lots of interfaces. UML. Eclipse. etc.

Make it hard for business blindness to stomp them out.

Is SCO even in the top 10? (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 8 years ago | (#13797876)

Forgive me, but is SCO even a player in the server market?

I have used dozens of POSIX OSes including SCO and although SCO had a good market share at one time have they not lost it? Does anyone actually run SCO in a production environment any more? Why would they not switch to Solaris (x86/AMD64), OpenBSD, FreeBSD or one of many Linux distributions?

SCO lost it as they priced it too high, poorly maintened it and it was intrinically a slow pig. When they got UNIXWare they botched this too as it's development too is stagnent. They spend too much on business hype and lawyers and not enough on product devlopment.

So for those new to the SCO story, run like hell from it.

Daniel Lyons, Paid Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13797901)

Please. Before you mod me down to Hell, keep in mind that Dan Lyons has a long history of inflammatory , anti-F/OSS and anti-Linux articles going back to at least the start of the SCOX-vs-IBM suit. All you do is feed the ForbesTroll.

Guys please... (4, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798010)

MySQL AB (the company behind MySQL) will just modify some code to add SCO Unix support. I mean, MySQL has windows support, Apache has Windows support, and Windows is "teh evil", so?

A much more important matter is Oracle buying InnoBase. (hint: InnoBase != MySQL AB). But then again, InnoDB is GPL. So, as long as they're GPL, we can still use them for GPL products.

Now the REALLY scary thing is this dual licensing stuff and MySQL requiring you to buy a license for MySQL if your product is not GPL. I'm still confused regarding the legal interpretation of it, this is a very scary issue, and the /. crowd remains silent about this. So, they're not scandalized about this dual licensing issue and the touchy circumstances , and what "linking" means regarding this (any legal info would be appreciated). But oh, MySQL modifies some code to add SCO Unix support, and the world as we know it is disappearing suddenly?.

I don't give a **** of what MySQL AB does with SCO (the GPL won't change, will it?). What worries me is the future of InnoDB and if i'll be able to use a MySQL client in my non-gpl'ed, for-profit (i.e. to earn a living) C++ or Python software without having to fear lawsuits from MySQL AB...

In fact, I think there should be an article on this subject (not that I've STFW'ed, but links would be appreciated).

Damage Control (1)

rabeldable (851423) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798059)

MySQL better start rebuilding bridges soon or they are gone. This is the biggest load of crap I've seen yet.

Burn me once - shame on you, burn me twice - shame on me. I wonder why it takes so many people getting burned to realize that some companies just do not play fair AND YOU SHOULD NOT GET IN BED WITH THEM!

I mean seriously, SCO... couldn't you guy's (MySQL) find someone more worthy of the partnership? This sounds like something M$ would do.

Noisy? (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#13798248)

Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group

I expressed a very calm concern to MySQL that partnering with SCO in any fashion gives them an illusion of legitimacy that SCO does not deserve. How does that make me a "noisy fanatic"?

Or does anyone expressing disapproval of the SCO deal qualify for that label? Isn't that being a little Republican? Along the same vein as accusing anyone not supporting the war in Iraq as being unpatriotic?

Like any other business, if MySQL is in any kind of trouble, they're most likely there because of their own bad decisions or bad luck. In this case it seems more like a combination of bad judgment and bad luck. MySQL was doing quite well for a while.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>