×

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 3.20.32a Released Under GPL

Roblimo posted more than 14 years ago | from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.

News 131

Rolan writes "It seems that MySQL has been released under the GPL. Though I can't find any stories on it, you can see the 'news' here." We're posting this because lots of people have sent it in, but don't get too excited about it, okay? According to this Linux Today piece sent in by bradsjm, only one older version of MySQL is being released under GPL. A good start, and worthy of applause, but not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

131 comments

Re:Current licensing scheme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717744)

WRONG. In this case it means that you get source, and can redistribute it, but if you distribute MySQL as part of a commercial system, you are obliged to pay for it, and if you use it for your website, you are encouraged to pay for it to get support and to support further development.

Re:Current licensing scheme? (0)

platinum (20276) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717745)

Are you a moron. You can easily download the source code, it's just not under the GNU Public Virus^WLicense.

Re:Current licensing scheme? (1)

Dusty Bottoms (14504) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717746)

"...if you use it for your website, you are encouraged to pay for it to get support and to support further development."

And the same is said of software from the FSF.. Personally, if I was making money from using free software, I would feel a certain obligation to give some of those profits back to the people who created it, either for further development, or even just so they can have fun with seeing some money for once. And if you're not making any money off of it and can't afford to send them anything, there's no skin off of anyone's back.

Isn't life wonderful?

Re:Licensing question (1)

MassacrE (763) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717747)

Think of a license more like "I own all rights to this code, but I will allow you to do xxxx with it". They still own all rights to the more recent code. Technically, if you make a change based on the code for this version, you must either release your changes under GPL or contact TcX to negotiate other conditions on a personal level. Since their personal copy is owned by them, they don't have to agree to the license, so all changes they've made to the code are theirs, not the GPL virus's

Re:Licensing question (2)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717748)

No.

A copyright holder can apply the GPL and any number of other licenses to his own work. He can't take back the GPL on a version once it's released, but is not required to use it on subsequent versions. However, this entirely ignores the matter of contributions. If you get GPL-ed contributions, you can't change the license on them without the permission of their copyright holders. Some people insist that you sign over the copyright of modifications before they will include them in their source thread, so that they can change the licensing on those modifications later on.

P.S. I just got back from 2 weeks in Alaska and was offline all that time

Thanks

Bruce

Re:MySQL is fast (on 2k databases) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717749)

PostgreSQL divides large tables into several files. E.g. if your database is larger than what your filesystem supports, PostgreSQL will simply spread the data across multiple files. MySQL does not support that, AFAIK. Of course, the limit of Linux in this area is bad, but the workaround in PostgreSQL is quite good.

Re:Licensing question (3)

HoserHead (599) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717750)

To understand how the GPL works, you must first understand how copyright works. As the owner of the copyright for a given piece of software, you can legally say exactly what the licensing terms are, and for whom. As an example, you can give it a license something like the following:

LICENSE FOR FOO PRODUCT

If your name is Bill, you may use Foo Product under the terms of the BSD License.

If your name is Joe, you may use Foo Product under the terms of the GPL.

In any other cases, the licensing terms for this product are dictated by the QPL.

Given, of course, that you define what the BSD License, the GPL, and QPL are, that is probably a valid license. Also, you can go ahead and release it to your friend Sue under a completely different license, and you don't have to tell anyone about it.

And then, 6 months later, you decide that Foo Product's licensing terms were a bit too restrictive, and you want Joe /and/ Bill to have rights to it under the BSD License, and everyone else to have it under the GPL. You can do that. The previous license still stands, though - so those people who got it under the rights of the previous license still have those rights.

And then, of course, you have to follow the terms of the license. In this case, Monty's releasing an old, unsupported version of MySQL under the GPL. This doesn't negate the fact it was under a non-Free license before, and it doesn't change the licensing to anything else. However, anything you do with this new GPL-licensed MySQL must be done under the terms of the GPL. Later on, Monty can change the license again, and you don't gain any more, nor do you lose, rights to it than you had under the GPL. Unless some sort of termination clause or other such thing is built right into the license, a piece of software is licensed as it is forever.

Re:MySQL is fast (on 2k databases) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717751)

I'm working on a 50TB data warehouse and no physical file is larger than 1GB. Now I wish there was a free RDBMS for Linux that could run that.

Re:Umm, so is it still a toy? (corrected) (2)

tdowney (21927) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717752)

If I remember correctly, MySQL still doesn't support referential integrity......so, technically speaking, you really shouldn't even call it a database.

Yep.. I wouldn't recommend more than 100 megs 4 it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717753)

Mysql starts to suck as you get above 100 megs. Especially how it locks all threads trying to do an insert on a table when you do a query with a group by....

MySQL Presentation at Open Source Convention '99 (1)

DevEiant (205) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717754)

I was at the MySQL: A faster database engine presentation at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention in Monterey just a few days ago, and the developers announced that they were indeed releasing 3.20 under the GPL The newer versions remain under their usual (free unless you are selling it) license.

To the extent that they said it themselves, it's a sure thing.

OT: I just have to know... (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717755)

Posted by Synsthe:

Bad Idea. Than we'd have a barrage of people once they figured it out running around going, "First human post!", or simply "Second post", and so on and so forth..

Might as well just let them have their fun, it's obvious they don't get to go out anywhere to have any sort of real life anyways. ;-)

--
Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)

Granted, but... (3)

mikemcc (4795) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717756)

Although I don't have any hard data to either confirm or deny your statement, I will accept as fact that Postgres has better performance on really large databases.

To me that's not a relevant selling point, while MySQL's speed is. I'm using PHP and MySQL to automate my company's intranet - content management, remote publishing, workflow, that sort of thing. The quantity of data that needs to reside in a database is relatively modest, so Postgres' superior performance at the high end is a benefit that I will never see. Our "Current Clients" or "Job Openings" databases just aren't going to get so big that MySQL strains under the load.

>But for real databases of actual size...

These are real databases, because they are storing real corporate information, reducing duplication of data, improving consistency, and generally making my fellow employees' work days better. Their actual size is very modest - much smaller than their actual benefit. Different tasks require different tools.

MySQL's speed does represent an immediate benefit to me, and to my users. Also, because I'm automating workflow, rather than handling financial transactions, I don't miss the features like commits or rollbacks that MySQL leaves out (specifically to increase the db's speed).

But the real "killer app" for me is the web-based interface to MySQL, phpMyAdmin. [phpwizard.net] This is a truly wonderful utility which has saved me tons of development time. The basic interface permits me to administer MySQL from my browser, and I can crank out customized interfaces on very short notice, just by copying the php scripts to a new directory and commenting out the HTML that produces functions that I don't want to offer to the user. In a relatively "high trust" environment like the company's intranet, MySQL, PHP, and phpMyAdmin have made my job MUCH easier.

FYI, the makers of phpMyAdmin now have a postgresMyAdmin [phpwizard.net], too, although I've been so happy with MySQL that I don't feel compelled to change.

I just have to know... (0)

barzok (26681) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717757)

Did Rob put some code in to generate a "FIRST!"-type post immediately after a story is posted?

Or are there just so many lamers that just keep hitting reload every minute all day that it just happens?

Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717758)

This is a big deal. I can now have a fast, free database.

Re:I just have to know... (1)

gorfin (80548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717760)

as time progresses, the amount of Lamers in the world grows to uncontronable paportions...

but it would help if i could learn to spell..

MySQL is fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717762)

MySQL is brain-blisteringly fast.

Re:PostgreSQL is free (2)

gampid (8492) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717763)

MySQL is a solid web tuned relational database. PostgresSQL is an academic database that implements many features MySQL doesn't but it takes a serious performance hit with all of those features.

Re:first post sport considered passe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717764)

I have already advanced the first-post sport to a higher level. The goal is to guess the exact ordinal of your post. This gets more difficult with more messages, and the longer the time it took to compose a message.

Perhaps rob & hemo can device a algorithm that takes account of the duration of composition (from hitting 'reply' to 'submit', and the frequency messages are posted at that time, and return a number that represents the difficulty level.

Let me try: 50th post!

Xah
xah@best.com
http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html

Re:PostgreSQL is free (1)

EvlG (24576) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717765)

If you are going to add more hardware for speed, then run MySQL on it and it would be THAT MUCH FASTER.

I like MySQL's speed, and for me the license is not a problem.

Re:Roblimo "commentary" (0)

Tarnar (20289) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717766)

Hee, shut up AC man, we know you're a coward and really aren't worth anything, but do you have to make inane comentary like that?

Re:I just have to know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717767)

the 1st post seems to be posted 25 minutes after the article appeared. Plenty of time for a

FIRST POST!1!!1!!!!!


Re:MySQL is fast (on 2k databases) (1)

ajjfk (11756) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717768)

Perhaps because Linux isn't the only OS that one might want to use?

/. editor doesn't understand GPL? (2)

FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717769)

Not a big deal that MySQL has been GPL'd??? Are you KIDDING?

This is amazingly cool. Let me lay it out in a simple list with a close-to-home example:
  1. Slashdot uses MySQL
  2. Slashdot occasionally has DB problems
  3. GPL'd software always has source code available
Conclusion: If MySQL were GPL'd, Slashdot could be made more stable.

I think we can all agree this is a laudable goal. Just because the GPL'd release is slightly older means nothing. The only reason new releases exist is to fix bugs or add features. Both of these actions are possible to perform against GPL'd software WITHOUT the permission of the original owner.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein

Re:Umm, so is it still a toy? (corrected) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717770)

"If it doesn't yet (It didn't when I last messed with it), then it's a toy. It'll make a nice DB for guest books, address books, and weblogs, but I would never run an e-commerce site on it." Your loss - I currently manage two ecom sites generating a ton of cash that both run on MySQL. Cheaper, Faster, Better - pick three...

Re:MySQL is fast (on 2k databases) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717771)

What OS would support huge files? Does it come under an acceptable license (either GPL or BSD)?

As useless as Microsoft Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717773)

The usefulness of this technology decreases with each new user of the technology. A high price should be charged for this to insure that only one person purchases it.

Re: Why it is a trivial deal (1)

catenos (36989) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717774)

If you have the source, you can make changes to it. [...]. For all those who bitch about those shortcomings, well, now you have the source to a fast database engine and you can do something about it.

The source of MySQL was available before - I don't know for how long, but at least a year. It was/is not GPL'ed, however.

Yes, I can spell "code fork" -- but if enough people start building on the old MySQL source, maybe they will eventually catch up to current versions of MySQL in terms of features,

No need to 'catch up'. The source of the newest version is available, too. Just do to it what you want to and send the patches in.

performance, and reliability and this might give TCX more reason to go all the way with the GPL.

Well, if the GPL is the only concern you have, then you are right and you probably have to double that work if you can.

I, personally, see the main advantage of open source in the ability to improve/fix the source and you already have this with MySQL and the way TcX handles it.

Re:Umm, so is it still a toy? (corrected) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717775)

I appreciate the speed and price (or lack thereof) of MySQL, and would certainly consider it a viable tool for non-critical applications, but how to you approach the issue of data corruption without the ability to roll back a transaction? Have you found a clever way to avoid this trap, or do you find yourself doing a lot of maintenance on your Db's? How would you go about writing a scrub w/o a PL/SQL equivalent?

Re:Granted, but... (1)

KyleCordes (10679) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717776)

Agreed. phpMyAdmin is the slickest tool around for admining MySQL. I like it much better than the Win32 and X based admin tools I have tried, and it works well across the net to admin a DB on a site hosted somethere.

** Kyle Cordes ** kyle@kylecordes.com ** http://DiskWise.com [diskwise.com] **

MySQL advantages - works well for DiskWise.com (1)

KyleCordes (10679) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717777)

I find MySQL to be fast, simple, reliable, and very easy to program for. It handles BLOBs easily, without using an arcane extra API. It is the "guts" behind several of my web sites, including (shameless plug) DiskWise.com [diskwise.com], which is based on PHP and MySQL.

Re:Brought to you by Middle Finger Technologies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717778)

I have just one question... where can i buy it???

pls email me at P8GN22B@PRODIGY.COM

thanks!

Huge files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717779)

MySQL has problems with big files but Postgres doesn't. Linux has a problem with big files anyway tho. What OS doesn't? (and is it free?)

Re:Current licensing scheme? (2)

itp (6424) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717780)

Question to any moderators / Rob: Why hasn't this post been moderated down yet? Do we need more moderator points available?

True, the post he/she is replying to was in error, but this response is just plain insulting.

--
Ian Peters

Re:Current licensing scheme? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717781)

GNU Public Virus^WLicense

Dude, what is the problem with GPL? I thought the concerns were addressed in the last few flame wars. If you don't like it, use something else. If you have a complaint that it 'absorbs' BSD code, uh, there was a defect in the BSD licence, you know, the same defect that allows Apple to take BSD, make changes, put it under its own licence and call it its own, and saving many changes for closed source. Of course this may have changed, but it seems that BSD licence assumes that people are more kind hearted than the GPL licence does.

I really don't have a problem with companies not using GPL, but many people are wary of any licence in which donated changes can be absorbed and become closed.

MySQL was already open sourced.. (1)

prodeje (58779) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717782)

It just wasen't under the GPL. I believe that under the old scheme, slashdot could still modify the code without caughing up money.
...

You must be insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717783)

You run an e-commerce site with a database that doesn't support transactions, rollbacks and referential integrity? I assume these are also toy e-commerce sites. If not, then you have some seriously foolish managers over there that let you in charge. I apologize in advance for the tone of this, but I'm rather appalled, frankly.

Re:/. editor doesn't understand GPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717784)

> 1.Slashdot uses MySQL
> 2.Slashdot occasionally has DB problems
> 3.GPL'd software always has source code available
> Conclusion: If MySQL were GPL'd, Slashdot could be made more stable.

Huh?

1. The MySQL source code was always available
2. Apache is not GPL'd and will never GPL'd
3. Apache is pretty dammned stable
4. Slashdot is running apache
Conclusion: What are you talking about?

Seriously: For most users it really doesn't matter under of what kind of opensource licence something is released, so it's not a big deal.

Re:Huge files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717785)

> Linux has a problem with big files anyway tho. What OS doesn't? (and is it free?)

Linux on Alpha (and maybe ultra sparc) or any *BSD on anything.

GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717786)

Cool! Is it GPLd? Where do I get the RPM?

Re:PostgreSQL is free (1)

mikeCRS (50144) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717788)

Huh?

Run MySQL - It does nothing, but it does it really, really fast.

Seriously. If you want to use any of the semi-advanced features from the SQL92 standard, you can't use MySQL.
--

Re:Current licensing scheme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717789)

> Question to any moderators / Rob: Why hasn't this post been moderated down yet? Do we need more
> moderator points available?

Because not every moderator is a "GPL RULEZ!" troll?

GPL and MySQL codebase (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717790)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the implications of using GPL as one's licensing scheme. Won't any future versions of MySQL that use ANY of this source code also be required to be licensed under the GPL?

Re:MySQL is fast (on 2k databases) (1)

X (1235) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717792)

Guess what.. Postgres should be able to do that.

ANOTHER BUG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717793)

I SPURTED A WAD ALL OVER MY BRAND NEW 17" MONITOR. NOW I CAN'T READ SLAPDOT. PLEASE ADVISE. -JOHN

Re:Granted, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717794)

Personally, data _integrity_ has always been a priority for me and my clients. Speed is secondary: the data means nothing if its not reliable. Triggers and foreign keys help here, as do subselects and other constraints... all of which MySQL lacks, and all of which PostgreSQL supports.

For instance, does the database allow you to insert bogus dates such as '1999-02-31' ? Postgres: no. MySQL: yes, surprisingly enough.

Does the database allow you to violate foreign key constraints ? Postgres: no, given the proper triggers ( refint.so ). MySQL: yes; no foreign key support.

How about getting _at_ your data? Can you query on subsets of particular columns, such as datetime columns? Postgres: Yes, but requires 'casting'. MySQL: not apparently. select count(*) from billing where nextdate between '1999-08-29' and '1999-08-30'; (nextdate being a datetime) produces 4 rows. "select count(*) from billing where nextdate::date between '1999-08-29'::date and '1999-08-30'::date" under postgres, with the same dataset, produces the expected 23 rows.

How about deleting/updating columns based on data from another table? Postgres: yes; subselect (correlated subselect for even more speed). MySQL: no, unless you do two separate queries and maintain the result from the first.

Or what about something as simple as a sequence? Postgres: yes; sequences and 'identity'/'auto-incrementing' columns (which actually create a sequence). MySQL: only auto-incrementing columns. And MySQL's implementation has (had?) a bug that could potentially violate what little foreign key constrains your _application_ (not the database) enforces: it reuses numbers. For instance, you have a customer with ID#9871 (highest value in that table). that customer has 5 accounts. You delete that customer # and _do not_ delete the accounts it owns. now you insert a new one and guess what happens? mysql reuses ID#9871. the new customer now has 5 accounts that s/he didnt purchase. Not to mention you can only grab the next number either (A) after you do an insert or (B) prior to doing an insert, which involves a potential large query to be issued ( select max(autoinccolumn) from table ) and is not multi-user safe.

So, now lets get to your speed issue. More than likely you, and most of the other posters, haven't tried PostgreSQL 6.5.x, which is a _MAJOR_ improvement over all previous releases. Assuming you have indexes in the proper places, queries under PostgreSQL could potentially be faster than queries under MySQL with _the same dataset_. Yes, I've actually had this happen on numerous occasions. I was quite shocked.

As for the 'killer app' you mentioned, phpMyAdmin... personally, I stay far, far away from PHP; there's no DB abstraction when compared to WebObjects, NetDynamics, or even Perl (DBD/DBI). Of course, I practically _live_ in WebObjects, but that's besides the point :) Besides, one can more than easily recreate phpMyAdmin in a more database-neutral language such as Perl+DBD/DBI.

So, in closing... Yes, mysql is fast. Yes, Postgres is a bit slower (sometimes). No, MySQL won't aid in your maintenance of the data. Yes, Postgres will.

Re:MySQL is fast (on 2k databases) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717795)

Until Postgres is able to do tablespaces like Oracle, SyBase, Informix, etc, I wouldn't recommend using it on such a large dataset.

Oracle with some hefty *cough*Sun*cough* hardware behind it would more than easily handle it.

Re:Run an Alpha (1)

James Manning (4620) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717796)

Actually, ext2 handles bigger than 2GB on Alpha.

It handles up to signed 32-bit on 32-bit arch and signed 64-bit on 64-bit arch.

With LFS patches, it handles up to signed 64-bit even on 32-bit arch (which is how my dual PII is hosting a 19GB MySQL DB that exists in ext2)

Naw, do the math (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717797)

Suppose 1000 lamers who check once an hour for new articles. That's an average of one every 3.6 seconds. Even with only 100 such lamers, that's 36 seconds. Not hard at all for one of them to get a first post.

--

Re:Granted, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717798)

I've just been looking at some WebObjects docs. & they've piqued my interest: any chance of it being supported on Linux do you think?

goddamit JenniCam! (1)

plunge (27239) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717800)

Put some clothes on and stop screwing each other- Slashdot is a family site!

Re:PostgreSQL is free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717801)

Just what, exactly, is an academic database?

Re:Hmm, why slashdot uses MySQL after all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717802)

> In a Nutshell, MySQL and miniSQL are the choices of unix kiddies, as is Perl.
Perl is for "unix kiddies". Aha. Interesting. Tell that those millions of sysadmins using Perl every day.

> For those who are concerned about quality and wishs a free software, the choice is PostGres, or GNUSQL.
> Does anyone know the status of GnuSQL?

You suggest GnuSQL for people concerned about quality and *ASK OTHRES ABOUT THE STATUS OF IT*?!?
That's what I call an advise based on good knowledge of GnuSQL - NOT!.

Re:Hmm, why slashdot uses MySQL after all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717803)

Easy, because /. and web based forums in general need speed more than they need referential integrity. They won't lose much shareholder value if they lose the occassional "First Post!".

Re:Brought to you by Middle Finger Technologies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717804)

Just wait. Microsoft Visual FirstPost 2000 is gonna kick everybody's butt.

The GPL explained. (3)

mrsam (12205) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717805)

The copyright holder, the owner of the source code, can use whatever license he/she wants at any time. Now, if someone ELSE takes the source code, they are the ones who have obligations under the GPL.

The GPL specifies the rights and obligations granted to you from someone else. Unless that someone else also received the GPLed source code, they have no GPL-related obligations whatsoever.
--

Let's mod down the first 5 post automatically... (1)

My_Favorite_Anonymou (36494) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717808)

until the moderators mod up the relevent posts. So the lamers will have to wait. A "Sixed post WooWoo" post is not that annoying if the first 5 on-topic posts expends to 100 posts.

CY

Re:first post sport considered passe (1)

My_Favorite_Anonymou (36494) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717810)

I doubt that's possible --you can compose the post for 3 hours. If Rob did want to implement it, use the "reply button hit time" instead of the "submet" time, I suggest adding a feature on the posting page. Add a "this is not the first post" sentence for the first 20 posts except the first one, so there would be only one "true" first post and I think half of the people wouldn't waste it.

CY

Re:Current licensing scheme? (1)

Patrik Nordebo (170) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717813)

Nor is it under any other free license, but rather under a relatively liberal, but still non-free license. Noone was saying that only GPL software is free or come with source. You should calm down.

Mysql better for web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717820)

Although Postgresql is one of the most advanced databases out there today (including commercial offerings like Oracle) It's performance is barely a shadow of MySQL's. For web, high performance is very important, so people are willing to deal with MySQL's lack of features.

Re:I just have to know... (3)

Hobbex (41473) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717821)


Actually, that isn't such a bad idea. If there was a script that sent a "first post" message, then at least the wouldn't get pleasure (???) of doing it. And the script could generate the messages at -1 automatically so we wouldn't have to see them.

Maybe the lamers would just go bother some other site...

-
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

Benchmarks Anyone?? (1)

GFD (57203) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717822)

Has anyone done recent benchmarks comparison between Postgres and MySql. The reason I ask is because the Postgres people look like they are doing a lot of good optimization work recently. MySql will undoubtedly still be faster but it would be interesting to see if the gap is being closed.

Re:I just have to know... (1)

Roast Beef (2298) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717823)

The catch is that he'd have to make it look like a normal user (randomize the message somewhat), and he couldn't tell us. Otherwise lamers could do a "first real post", and it'd be useless. Yeah, it'd be cool, but he couldn't tell us about it.

BUG? (0)

deno (814) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717824)

I have yust put the treshold to -1, which is the lowest possible, yet I get "2 replies below your current treshold" message.

Current licensing scheme? (1)

loren (2875) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717825)

I took a (admittedly very quick) look on their website, and couldn't find reference to how the other versions of MySQL are licensed. What is their current licensing scheme for these other versions?

Why it is a non-trivial deal (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717826)

If you have the source, you can make changes to it. MySQL has the reputation for being fast, but it lacks a lot of features. For all those who bitch about those shortcomings, well, now you have the source to a fast database engine and you can do something about it.

Yes, I can spell "code fork" -- but if enough people start building on the old MySQL source, maybe they will eventually catch up to current versions of MySQL in terms of features, performance, and reliability and this might give TCX more reason to go all the way with the GPL.

But then, I'm just an Anonymous Coward

Re:Current licensing scheme? (3)

Scola (4708) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717827)

See: http://www.mysql.com/Manual_chapter/manual_Licensi ng_and_Support.html Basically, if you are selling MySQL on CD, charging to intall it, or putting it in a non-redistrubitable distribution they want a cut. The client is already GPLed.

Roblimo "commentary" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717828)

Gee, shut up man. We know you're a professional writer and all but do you really have to make inane commentary like that?

Re:BUG? (1)

Q*bert (2134) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717829)

You may have enabled penalties for posts under a certain number of characters. In that case, posts can have a minimum score of -2. You should probably go to the users page and check your preferences to see if this is the problem.

Cheers,

Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product

Source oddity (1)

K-Man (4117) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717830)

I downloaded the source and found it contains 2798 entries. When I pipe the list through sort -u, I find only 1399 of these filenames are unique. Is there an echo in here...in here? (I guess that means some files have been GPL'd *twice*.)

Re:/. editor doesn't understand GPL? (2)

Whip (4737) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717831)

How does the GPL help make /. more stable?

The source code for MySQL is and always has been available, and the license doesn't restrict one's ability to alter that source for their own needs. The existing license, already fairly liberal for a 'commercial' piece of software, allows anyone who cares to assist to help fix whatever problems slashdot may have.

...unless you're saying that people can't bugfix code without it being GPL'd first. I'd really hope that isn't the case!

True, but still great for many applications (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717832)

I agree that MySQL isn't ready for replacing Oracle, but if you don't need that, you can avoid paying Oracle's huge licesing fees.

People I know who were previously senior Oracle engineers have stated that most people totally overestimate their database needs and most could easily get by without things like transactions.

Wrong license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717833)

PostgreSQL is under a BSD style license. Doesn't that make it open software instead of free software?

Re:Umm, so is it still a toy? (corrected) (3)

Jonas ÷berg (19456) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717834)

I've had first hand experience on the differences between PostgreSQL and MySQL. Some time ago, I was asked to take over maintanance of a web application (e-commerce system) that was using MySQL as the RDBM. This database layout hasn't to my knowledge had any real problems, but when I was asked to build another, similar system, for another client, I was faced with the choice between MySQL and PostgreSQL. This time, I sat down and read through some more advanced SQL features. Let's face it; almost everyone can learn basic SQL rather quickly, but most of us (myself included at that point) just never bother with the more advanced features. Sometimes we even make databases using SQL that could just as well have been GDBM's.


So what I discovered was that PostgreSQL had a lot of advanced features, and when I saw from examples how these could be used, there was no question about that I should use PostgreSQL instead. I used to love MySQL, and I still do as a quick web-application database, but whenever I make a more serious system these days, I tend to use PostgreSQL because the features it provides allows me to construct a database layout that is superior than that which can be made with MySQL.

Re:Hmm, why slashdot uses MySQL after all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717835)

PostgreSQL is _not_ GPL'd. It uses a BSD license and there are lots of us who are striving towards an entire GPL'd system.

Re:True, but still great for many applications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717838)

Well, I have better things to do w/my weekends than untangle a database because my boss was too damn cheap to buy the real thing. I'm glad there are alternatives. I'm glad people use them. But it won't be me.

Run an Alpha (2)

raistlinne (13725) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717839)

Alphas handle files much bigger than 2 GB. As Linus is supposed to have said, if you want to do stuff like that, get a real computer to do it with.

Re:PostgreSQL is free (2)

Eric Green (627) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717841)

PostgreSQL was an academic database five years ago. Today, it is a full-featured SQL database with many of the same features as Oracle or Informix -- and, like those databases, it is not the fastest in the world and has a pretty hefty footprint.
The speed problem is pretty much gone nowdays, but any SQL database that supports cursors, triggers, and transactions will be slower than an SQL database that ignores those features in favor of pure speed.
MySQL leaves out features in exchange for speed. PostGreSQL doesn't. Which one to use depends on whether you need those features or not. For web site use you usually don't need those features. If you were writing an accounting or inventory package, on the other hand, I would not do it without having full transaction with rollbacks support, i.e. PostGreSQL. Otherwise you run the risk of database inconsistencies that could be the death of your business.

-E

Re:Current licensing scheme? (1)

Q*bert (2134) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717849)

Freshmeat says it's "free to use but restricted". That means it doesn't cost any money, but you can't have the source code. Bummer.

Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product

YAY!!! THANK YOU!! (1)

alehmann (50545) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717850)

Finally we have a database like MySQL available as free software. Kudos to TcX (i think it's called that :)

MySQL rawks! (1)

rednic (8954) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717851)

wow, this is really great news... now my LAMPP system (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl, PHP) is totally free! So now I can develop stuff for my non-profit sites and for commercial sites using the same software! :-)

Re:Current licensing scheme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717852)

that means it doesn't cost any money, but you can't have the source code.

not quite, if you mean you can only get precompiled binaries. You can download and compile the source yourself, but you can't distribute it a la GPL.

Not really (1)

John Allsup (987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717853)

Not really.

The current version stable version is 3.22, and the development version is 3.23.

Essentially, this is like the ghostscript licensing where 1-2 year old versions get GPL'd, and the current one is under a different license.

That said, it is a good thing, especially since there ARE GPL'd SQL server projects that could make good use of it


John

Re:PostgreSQL is free (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717854)

Many people claim postgre is slower than mysql. I'd really like to know how much slower... Is it possible to compensate the speed by throwing more hardware in? If mysql is for example 50% faster, it would make sense, but if it's 400% then more hardware won't help as much.

Umm, so is it still a toy? (corrected) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717855)


Does MySQL have transactions yet? Row level locking? SMP capable? Ability to rollback the database?

If it doesn't yet (It didn't when I last messed with it), then it's a toy. It'll make a nice DB for guest books, address books, and weblogs, but I would never run an e-commerce site on it.

Last time I messed with it, joins where extraordinary slow compared to Oracle.

Postgres may be slower, but it's a real RDBMS, not a glorified GDBM. Any "DBMS" *without* ACID properties is not a true RDBMS.

Re:MySQL is fast (on 2k databases) (1)

Bouncings (55215) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717857)

Yeah, it's fast, on databases the size billg's "little black book." But for real databases of actual size, MySQL really starts to cough. Postgres handles larger data without loosing speed, up to 400 gigs I understand. MySQL? 400 megs MAYBE...

Re:Umm, so is it still a toy? (corrected) (3)

Gleef (86) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717868)

Yeah, by those measures it's still a toy. But as a toy it's still powerful enough for little web-backend databases, which it seems to work very well for.

A Honda Civic is a toy, if your standard is a Tractor-Trailer rig. That doesn't make it less useful for the people who only need to run to the store for groceries. I'm glad to see more choices available in Free database servers, even "toys".

----

Hmm, why slashdot uses MySQL after all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717869)

...but not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. So why slashdot uses MySQL? Isn't there good GPL alternatives to avoid it (as PostgreSQL)?

More Supposedly Coming (1)

Carl Nasal (10625) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717870)

The e-mail sent to announce@lists.mysql.org said that:
We will continue to release older releases of MySQL as GPL from time to time...

Although they may not release new versions as GPL (right now), at least older versions may become GPL'd.

--
ZZWeb.net Web Hosting - http://www.zzweb.net

Licensing question (3)

stevef (5539) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717871)

So if they release verion 3.20.32a under the GPL, by the nature of the GPL doesn't that mean that all successive versions are also covered by the GPL?

I ask this beacuse the article is very specific about a particular version of MySQL.

Yeah, I know it's a nitpick, but I'm not trying to look a gift-culture in the mouth. I just want to make sure I understand how the GPL works.

Steve

Re:MySQL is fast (on 2k databases) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1717872)

Maybe.. But how large a percentage of database users will use databases even above 40MB?

The total of data I have may be above 40MB, but no single database is more than a few megs.

Re:I just have to know... (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 14 years ago | (#1717873)

Hell, just take all the 1st posts from the past, regardless if they are first, and use that. And keep adding to the database as life goes on.. or until Author Dent gets beamed into space by his alien friend...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...