Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MySQL Quietly Drops Support For Debian Linux [UPDATED]

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the any-color-as-long-as-it's-black dept.

Databases 339

volts writes "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not support for Linux in general." Update: 12/13 20:52 GMT by J : MySQL AB's Director of Architecture (and former Slash programmer) Brian Aker corrects an apparent miscommunication in a blog post: "we are just starting to roll out [Enterprise] binaries... We don't build binaries for Debian in part because the Debian community does a good job themselves... If you call MySQL and you have support we support you if you are running Debian (the same with Suse, RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu and others)... someone in Sales was left with the wrong information"

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

Let's fork it! (0, Redundant)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223330)

Guys, it's time to fork MySQL. I am ready [and willing] to contribute. What do you think?

Re:Let's fork it! (4, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223416)

I suppose you could do that, but unless you're planning on offering Enterprise support for your offering on a wide variety of platforms, you're not really gaining anything. MySQL will presumably still run on Debian, at least for now, but without the ability to buy support for it on that platform, you're not going to get approval to put it on that platform in any sort of business-critical environment.

Now, if you wanted to start a new company that offered Enterprise support for MySQL on Debian, you might have something there. I don't know that you would make any money, but at least you'd be offering something that isn't currently offered.

Re:Let's fork it! (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223544)

> I don't know that you would make any money, but at least you'd be offering something that isn't currently offered.

I doubt it. And more important than my opinion, MySQL doubts it and has the sales figures to show it. Companies don't normally kill off profitable products and services, not even evil/stupid corporations.

Profitability (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224058)

I doubt it. And more important than my opinion, MySQL doubts it and has the sales figures to show it. Companies don't normally kill off profitable products and services, not even evil/stupid corporations.
Just because one person can't do something profitably, doesn't mean that someone else can't do it profitably.
 

Companies kill off profitable lines all the time (5, Insightful)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224086)

If a company holds that it can make a 50% ROI on one product line and a 25% ROI on onther product line (and all other things being held equal) they will put their resources into the line with the 50% ROI until such time as the law of diminishing returns brings the marginal ROI for additional resources being added to under 25%.

For example, when I was a kid a local pizza delivery chain started delivering breakfast pizzas. They made money hand over fist. But after a few months, the calculated that the additional cost of maintaining a third shift of workers and an expanded breakfast menu would bring in more money if put into opening additiona stores serving the traditional lunch, dinner, late night crowd with the normal pizzaria menu.

Most likely what is happening is that the MySQL corporation finds that if it spends the same number of dollars training a support tech, those dollars bring in more money if the tech is dedicated to Redhat and/or SuSE than if the tech is also trained on Debian. This doesn't mean that there is no market for Debian support. It means only that MySQL has a higher relative profit from supporting just two databases. The calculation may be different for another company that has a different resource pool. For example a company that already supports Debian Linux, may have a very low marginal cost for adding MySQL on Debian support and, consequently, have a far higher ROI for supporting MySQL on Debian.

UBUNTU ! Why Hath Thou Foresaken Me ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17224188)

UBUNTU ! Why Hath Thou Foresaken Me ? Have I no creed ? Have I no substance ? Am I not a ...woman ?

Re:Let's fork it! (2, Interesting)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224368)

The other explanation would be that Debian has done something to seriously piss the MySQL people off (my speculation).

I *know* that they went this way with the Seamonkey crew. Here is a reproduced Newsgroup response from a Seamonkey developer on the subject of Debian and Iceape (the previous thread entry is in italics and the developers response is bold:

The "SeaMonkey" trademark is held by MoFo, but AIUI, they allow the Council to grant people the right to use it.

Well, MoFo applied for the trademarks, but doesn't hold them yet, as they've not yet been granted. They applied for them representing us though, and they will leave management of the trademark in the hands of the SeaMonkey Council.

But AIUI, Debian has moved past caring about using MoFo's trademarks.
And AFAICT from this thread, the level of bitterness on the SeaMonkey side seems even higher than in the Mozilla community in general.


That may very much be true, as they pre-judged us of being the same as MoCo and not even listening to what we wanted to say. Us being legally backend by MoFo was enough for them to not even really discuss this topic, i.e. not even asking what the terms for using the SeaMonkey trademarks would be.

And their choice of name for the clone they are shipping is an insult in my ears anyways, but that's just my personal opinion.

BTW, I really think their inconsistent treatment of trademarks is enough reason for not understanding them anyways. Their own trademarks are protected with one of the strictest possible policies (no use except explicitely granted by Debian) and then they accuse other of being too strict - and it seems some of their responsible people have not yet understood that trademarks and copyright are two completely different things legally.

Anyways, for me, that discussion is over and Debian itself is dead meat in this regard for me personally (note that ubuntu even departs from Debian's path for MoCo trademarks already).


Elsewhere in the thread, IceApe was described by the same person as a 'Crappy Clone'.

Re:Let's fork it! (2, Interesting)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224132)

but without the ability to buy support for it on that platform, you're not going to get approval to put it on that platform in any sort of business-critical environment.

. . . without the ability to buy support from MySQL for it, that is. Third parties, system integrators, etc. will continue to support whatever their customers pay them for. So while this is a blow for Debian in big enterprise, let's face it, how many big enterprise environments were running straight Debian in the first place? Red Hat's king with SUSE buzzing around their ankles. This won't affect small to mid sized organizations with outside IT people.

Re:Let's fork it! (2, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223466)

Why? Is there a problem with the code, or the license? You're free to start your own company and offer tech support and other services for MySQL, and there's always PostgreSQL. But if the MySQL coders are still doing good work, I see no reason to fork.

Re:Let's fork it! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17224016)

But if the MySQL coders are still doing good work

What do you mean by still? It makes you sound like you are trying to claim MySQL was not a fucking toy database for girlymen.

Re:Let's fork it! (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224172)

Funny and true. Great reply.

Re:Let's fork it! (2, Insightful)

Alchemar (720449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223490)

The problem is support, not inoperability. The software still works, you just don't have anyone to call when it doesn't work the way you expected. Forking the project does not solve this problem. If a third party wanted to sell a customer support contract for it, they could do so without needing a fork. If MySQL started releasing later versions of the software without the source, then a fork would be needed to have a branch that could be supported by another company.

Re:Let's fork it! (5, Insightful)

Drasil (580067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223568)

Guys, it's time to fork MySQL.

...or switch to the excellent Postgres [postgresql.org] which is more open and a more complete SQL implementation than MySQL anyway.

Expect to see more things like this happening as the IT landscape undergoes it's coming changes.

Re:Let's fork it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17224134)

...or switch to the excellent Postgres which is more open and a more complete SQL implementation than MySQL anyway.


Yes ! It even includes a vaccuum !

Re:Let's fork it! (1)

Dan Farina (711066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224160)

Postgres is getting faster, too. With SQLite and Postgres, I find the obvious uses for MySQL to be shrinking and becoming more dubious.

Re:Let's fork it! (5, Interesting)

suntac (252438) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223692)

Mmm fork MySQL? Why? There is nothing wrong with the code. You could try to fork the support and start a company specialized in MySQL support on Debian.....

I think there is a market for this. The only thing you need is a couple of good people. You/we(the community) could also create a company GPL style. Create a pool of people willing to devote there time on solving MySQL Debian support problems. Create a ticket like system and assign questions to people in the pool.

This way you can quickly create a non-profit company with little to non investments. The biggest "problem" is that you have to attract people willing to become part of you expert pool.

While writing this, it might even be a good challenge to start this..... I will think some more about this. :-) Anyone in? ;-)

Regards,
Johan Louwers.

Re:Let's fork it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223696)

If by MySQL you mean "Your butt", and by fork you mean "TEH SECKS" then, yes...yes I will!

Oh well (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223332)

Is it really a problem? If you worried about support wouldn't you be using a distro that also offers support contracts?

Re:Oh well (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223820)

Canonical, Ltd. offers support contracts for Ubuntu, but MySQL won't support anything but Red Hat or SuSE.

Re:Oh well (3, Insightful)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223912)

Maybe Canonical should step up and offer MySQL support on Ubuntu.

QUIETLY? (1)

Viraptor (898832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223822)

The real problem?
"MySQL Quietly Drops Support..." ?
Ok - so what should they do? Place posters all around your city saying "WE DROP SUPPORT FOR DEBIAN USERS!!!"? Yeah - that would be a great marketing move. Get real - they don't want to go on with Debian support dept., then it's their choice. They're creating a place for a new company, that will do support for those who want it.

Re:QUIETLY? (4, Informative)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223944)

The real problem? "MySQL Quietly Drops Support..." ? Ok - so what should they do? Place posters all around your city saying "WE DROP SUPPORT FOR DEBIAN USERS!!!"?

I think the point is that they haven't made it clear, even on their website [mysql.com] that they have made a business decision to ignore everything but Red Hat and Suse. From the story: "We learned of this when MySQL declined to sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported on Debian OS.'". So a company got bitten by using a generic (Debian) Linux then asking for support and finding out that "generic" means anything but.

They really should make some sort of statement, even if it's market spun, e.g. "...for the benefit of our enterprise customers we are concentrating on supporting the two most popular commercial distributions... we expect third-party support companies and the active MySQL community to continue supporting less popular and non-commercial distributions". (P.S. for the benefit of anyone flicking through, I made that up!)

Re:QUIETLY? (1)

Viraptor (898832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224300)

Hmm... browsing through it, I see, they list RH and Suse separately and Generic Linux somewhere at the bottom... For me it seems, that they added specific names and forgot to take down Generic thing.
Some kind of editing mistake probably. We'll see about it in a couple of days, when they react in some way.

The Linux Meme Knows All (0, Troll)

broward (416376) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224228)


http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?entr y=linux_meme [realmeme.com]

My interpretation? In the United States, Linux is being marginalized as a specialty niche server. I didn't include the worldwide graphs, but Linux appears to have only a slightly better future. Predictably, Vista is ramping up and gaining mindshare and buzz.

Re:The Linux Meme Knows All (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17224266)

Go away Troll.

Those mother... (2, Funny)

Unoti (731964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223336)

Clearly we need to get some tough mother forkin programmers on this...

Bit misleading (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223344)

MySQL (the database) still works with Debian, but MySQL (the support company) no longer sells support for Debian.

Re:Bit misleading (3, Insightful)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223644)

MySQL (the database) still works with Debian, but MySQL (the support company) no longer sells support for Debian.

For medium and large companies (which are the only entities that would buy support to begin with), that difference is purely academic. If it isn't supported, it isn't worth running.

Re:Bit misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223736)

And if there were a significant market for Debian in the enterprise, I doubt they'd stop supporting it. Most of the places I've worked have used Red Hat, because it has an enterprise reputation.

Re:Bit misleading (3, Informative)

dsci (658278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223826)

Most of the places I've worked have used Red Hat, because it has an enterprise reputation.
Point of clarification: places have RH because they offer support to their enterprise product. Debian's reputation for stability and such is pretty strong, but that only carries so far in the business setting. It's not reputation that drives RH over Deb to the enterprise...it's "I can pay YOU to fix it when it's broke." JMO.

What does this say for OSS as a business model? (2, Insightful)

dsci (658278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223744)

MySQL (the support company) no longer sells support for Debian.

It seems to me that this decision must be driven by sales or market research indicated there is no market for support contracts on Debian based systems. So, does this challenge the notion that OSS can work in a capitalist world when the real "product" is support?

Debian based distros are a significant chunck of the Linux market|mindshare. This decision essentially means the combination of Debian + MySQL is doomed in the business setting.

On the other hand, this does seem to show that there IS a market for support on RH based distros.

In fact, as I think about it, I think what this is really saying is that they want to support MySQL, NOT the underlying OS. Perhaps they have some data that shows that many of their support calls are really for the OS or other parts of the system. In making this decision, they don't rope themselves into having to support anything but MySQL. They can answer a non-relevant (to them) call with "oh, that's an OS issue - call your OS support provider." I'd say that's fair.

It also helps them when there is a problem with MySQL on a client system...THEY can call RH (or whomever) support to make sure everybody gets things 'right.' No, the more I think about it, the more I think this actually strengthens the "give away the software, sell support" model.

Re:What does this say for OSS as a business model? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223962)

Except that Red Hat and Suse are not entirely open source.
What happens when MySQL depends on the closed part?

Quit complaining and drink your koolaid.

Re:What does this say for OSS as a business model? (2, Insightful)

stry_cat (558859) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224046)

Except that Red Hat and Suse are not entirely open source.
What happens when MySQL depends on the closed part?

Huh? I didn't know this about RH (don't know anything about Suse). Is this really true? Wouldn't CENTOS [centos.org] have some serious problems in making a RHEL rebuild if there were some close source things in it?

Give us some examples please.

Re:What does this say for OSS as a business model? (2)

Wudbaer (48473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224120)

Now you just have to show me the closed parts both in Suse and especially in RedHat.

Re:Bit misleading (1)

xantho (14741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223748)

Yeah, it's great for name recognition that the two are named the same, but for getting information out like this, it's really confusing to have then named the same. You have to play stupid word games like saying, "The MySQL Project," and "The MySql Company," or something equally inane.

Wow... this is the beginning of the end (1)

jarich (733129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223354)

I've used MySql in a number of different companies. In many cases knowing that they could buy a support contract let me bring in MySql. I also really like Kubuntu these days.

I guess it time to dig in and learn another tool to replace it.

Re:Wow... this is the beginning of the end (2, Interesting)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223474)

I guess it time to dig in and learn another tool to replace it.
Meh, I'd rather replace MySQL than my Debian distribution. If I was truly concerned about commercial support for my database then I'd buy a commercial database like Sybase or Oracle. People use MySQL because it's free, not necessarily because it's better, or even comparable, to commercial offerings.

Re:Wow... this is the beginning of the end (1)

jarich (733129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223578)

Meh, I'd rather replace MySQL than my Debian distribution.

That's what I meant. Sorry for the ambiguity. I love Kubuntu and wouldn't ditch it.

If I was truly concerned about commercial support for my database then I'd buy a commercial database like Sybase or Oracle.

I'm not concerned about the support. I've never needed it... but I've found it makes C level execs (especially at startups) feel better about a tool if they know there's someone out there they can throw money at and "get help".

People use MySQL because it's free, not necessarily because it's better, or even comparable, to commercial offerings.

Not me... I like MySql. :) It's fast, got enough features, lightweight... and the most important feature for a tool... I already know it.

Re:Wow... this is the beginning of the end (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223688)

We just need Debian enterprise or Kubuntu enterprise to have $$$ support. Then again given the amount of helpful people around not wanting a dime for the help they provide, the only people giving a damn are those people paying for an enterprise version of Linux.

Re:Wow... this is the beginning of the end (2, Interesting)

dsci (658278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223960)

Then again given the amount of helpful people around not wanting a dime for the help they provide, the only people giving a damn are those people paying for an enterprise version of Linux.

Community support is a great thing, and hopefully all of us that USE F/OSS software give back to that in some way. But the business world, and many individuals, operate on the principle of "you get what you pay for." Most of the time this is a good guideline, but F/OSS is an exception. There are QUALITY products out there, and quality support, available for no upfront financial cost. But in the minds of many business types, if you pay nothing, it must be worth nothing.

(car analogy to follow)

Think about it this way; would you take a FREE car without ANY suspicion that there's something wrong with it? Perhaps, if you knew the seller and trusted him. You and I trust the seller (the OSS community) to provide good products and services, but the average PHB does not know this community - he cannot trust his enterprise with such an unknown.

Another way to put it is that you and I can see the VALUE, independent of price, of OSS, but many others don't. They associate the value with the price tag. Without PAID support, the support is worthless.

The Business Case (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224108)

It makes sense though when you think about it. How many companies are out there looking for a support contract for MySQL but aren't using RedHat, etc? Considering that supporting Debian could entail supporting several different specific flavors, it doesn't really seem like the revenue for it would be worth the complications.

Presumably if there's enough of a business for such support, somebody will come in and fill the gap. That's the beauty of open source, non? You can actually get support from somebody other than the originaly developer. If it was Microsoft refusing to support some old version of their software, you'd be up a creek.

Solution (5, Informative)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223378)

Loudly drop support for MySQL. Here are two excellent alternatives:

PostgreSQL [postgresql.org]
Firebird [firebirdsql.org]

Still, Debian provides good MySQL packages. Use them instead. If you need support, I'm sure you could find someone to provide it for you.

Re:Solution (2, Insightful)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223642)

for "support" read "liability when it all breaks". That's what linux support is really all about. Would you want to be a technician personally responsible for downtime and several million of lost sales? Your bosses won't let it happen, because obviously you can't pay it back.

Re:Solution (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223750)

Ahh, the good old "who do you sue" chestnut. How's suing Oracle working out for you whenever you find bugs in their database, or if you got bad advice from their support techs?

Indeed... (5, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223972)

The "who do you sue" line's as old as the hills and, largely speaking, irrelevant because you're never
going to get to first base unless it's a screw-up of epic proportions. Even then, it's more likely to
be a colossal waste of your time and merely an exercise of fattening your lawyer's wallet.

Re:Solution (4, Interesting)

virtual_mps (62997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223814)

you think that mysql support will buy unlimited legal/financial liability for costs incurred by downtime of your mysql installation?

really?

seriously?

hahahahahahaha

What your support contract buys you is the ability to call someone on the phone. If it makes your boss happy to have someone to call and yell at when shit breaks, well, ok.

Re:Solution (4, Insightful)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224056)

I have never in my entire life seen a softare company held financially liable for lost sales as a result of a database failure. Please, feel free to cite one single lawsuit if you can find one.

Re:Solution (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224150)

You know in the software industry that is a bunch of bullshite.

If that were true then MSFT wouldn't have any money at all as they would be responsible for billions in lost sales annually. Just one Virus through one product line(not even windows but MS SQL) a year would be expensive. Yet MSFT doesn't have to pay so why would Mysql, or IBM, or any other software company for lost sales or data?

Re:Solution (2, Interesting)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224254)

So, how successful are you from getting money for downtime from Microsoft when a computer gets a virus? Or breaks due to an update?

Re:Solution (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224272)

for "support" read "liability when it all breaks". That's what linux support is really all about. Would you want to be a technician personally responsible for downtime and several million of lost sales? Your bosses won't let it happen, because obviously you can't pay it back.

Any system has the potential to cause damage if it goes down. But this doesn't create "liability" for the company's support staff. Being the support provider does not automatically make you liable for any problem. But it does make you the responsible party... the person that they can turn to to fix their problem. That's called "having a job."

Some companies are big enough to keep their own support staff on hand. Other companies need to outsource it to companies like Red Hat and MySQL AB. But Red Hat does not become liable for your downtime just because they are your support provider. You can be sure that they their support contracts state that will NOT be liable for resulting damages of lost sales and the like.

The same is true of Microsoft's EULA and pretty much any software that you buy or use and any service that you purchase. Even if it is not written in the contract, it doesn't matter, because contract law does not presume liability for resulting damages, only direct damages.

Re:Solution (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17224044)

I could, but it would make basically no change for us (because we're not in the business of selling dinky php scripts for blogs). 99% of our customers use and want MSSQL/Oracle/DB2, and the few left mostly want PostgreSQL. I doubt we'd get a single request for supporting MySQL.

Re:Solution (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224192)

And that would buy you what? Neither of those solutions are offering enterprise support for Debian either...

Re:Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17224222)

Firebird? I thought they changed the named to Firefox?

So, Debian users can't... (1)

Rastignac (1014569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223388)

So, Debian users can't COUNT() on MySql because they DROP support...
SQL can be funny.

Generic, huh? (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223390)

I guess that's fair - my company migrated to supporting only "generic Red Hat Database", aka PostgreSQL.

Seriously, except in cases where you have no choice about database availability, I can't see a single reason to use MySQL these days. All of their cool features are owned by their competitors, and they're starting to pull desperate financing tricks like whittling away tech support and partnering with SCO. Are people still using it for new deployments, and if so, why?

Re:Generic, huh? (4, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223494)

Simple. Every nickel and dime hosting company uses MySQL so every CMS blog, and forum supports MySQL.
Up to and including Slashcode.
It is now catch 22. Everybody uses MySQL because everyone uses MySQL.
Heck I use MySQL for our CMS because not every module supports PostgreSQL.
I would much rather use PostgreSQL for everything but I don't have time to re-invent the wheel.

Re:Generic, huh? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223548)

Gotcha. Maybe I should have changed that to "for new development", as in starting-from-scratch projects where there are no database dependencies already in place. Is anyone still using MySQL in those situations?

Re:Generic, huh? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223866)

What part of "Every nickel and dime hosting company uses MySQL" did you not understand?

Re:Generic, huh? (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223590)

Are people still using it for new deployments, and if so, why?

Inertia and familiarity. Fortunately, the barriers to switching aren't all that great, so it'll be easy enough to jump ship when/if needed. I'm one of the 80-90% of users that just needs some tables and industry-standard SQL; for almost all of my needs, I could use just about any DB backend. Yes, I know, YMMV.

Oh well (2, Informative)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223394)

I can't say for sure whether it's the same level of support, but there's always Canonical [canonical.com] for Ubuntu and Progeny [progeny.com] for Debian support.

And yet... (3, Interesting)

merc (115854) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223402)

They're more than happy to be a SCO/Canopy partner.

I know where I'll not be spending my IT budget next year.

Fork or Spoon (5, Funny)

Paulitics (1036046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223418)

MySQL only lets me spoon it.

But Postgre lets me fork it all night long.

Get Ready... (5, Interesting)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223426)

I see that a definite split of "Premium Linux" vs. "Unsupported Linux" is coming soon to a vendor near you. That doesn't mean that Linux will die, it's just going to smell funny (possibly like pee).

Re:Suse, Red Hat and ?? (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224226)

Besides the obvious Suse and Red Hat who's the third "premium" linux? I'd say Debian is not it, but Ubuntu sure has the resources to be #3.

Who do you think will be the top 3?

Forking won't necessarily do anything (5, Insightful)

iamjoltman (883526) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223438)

I see there's already a few comments that the code should be forked. The thing is, what is forking going to do for it? They are dropping support for Linux distros, but that's not saying it won't run on other distros, just that it's not supported. The only way a fork would do anything is if the forked version had it's own support as well.

Re:Forking won't necessarily do anything (1)

Anonymous MadCoe (613739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223570)

You're right. Actually forking will lead to more fragmentation which is the problem in the first place. You can't expect a software vendor to support many different Distros (you could argue over it, but in general very few people see that commercially viable).

The problem would never have existed if things didn't get forked all the time and everyone would re-use what's out there. But then again, that would take the fun out of it ....

Re:Forking won't necessarily do anything (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224316)

Even then, forking isn't necessary to provide support. All that's needed is for a company to come in and offer third-party MySQL support for other distros.

However, I don't see that happening; most likely dropping support for everything but RH and SuSE has something to do with the fact that those two distros dominate the enterprise marketshare so much that there just isn't any money to be made in providing support for MySQL on Debian.

All of my servers run Debian (2, Interesting)

maynard (3337) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223446)

While I don't currently have or need a support contract from MySQL, I wouldn't transition away from Debian within our machine room just for their sake. I can't say this is a mistake for them, as I don't know what sales numbers they see, but here's one potential customer that's gone as a result.

Re:All of my servers run Debian (3, Insightful)

PHPfanboy (841183) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223698)

> While I don't currently have or need a support contract from MySQL

I think this says it all for most Debian users. They are either in-house experts, testing the water for their app or don't have a culture of procurement (read: lower budget or just plain cheap). This is not a criticism, it's just a business reality.

MySQL is a business, unless we want them to go out of business and drop support for everything there's not much to complain about.

Re:All of my servers run Debian (5, Insightful)

chundo (587998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223714)

I doubt that's the point. I'm sure they just decided that rom a cost/benefit perspective, money spent training their support staff on Debian wasn't worth the amount of business they were getting from Debian customers. Which makes a lot of sense to me - in my experience, people that run Debian servers have a more thorough knowledge of the system and administering it, and consequently have less need/desire for software support (yourself included, it sounds like). And assuming that's true, it's also not much of a stretch to assume that someone that interested in the guts of a system would choose something like Postgres over MySQL anyways if they had a choice, since it's had more advanced features for much longer than MySQL has.

Re:All of my servers run Debian (1)

maynard (3337) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224126)

In point of fact, we are already running a PostgreSQL server as a backend for a call tracking system. So... yeah. :)

Why fork it? (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223470)


I don't see this as a technical deficiency of the software. This is a business issue.

Do you have Debian and MySQL expertise? Find yourself someone business-savvy (hint: it's probably not you) and sell support for MySQL on Debian. Be your own boss (hint: make sure your business-savvy person isn't a PHB). I think MySQL AB has been pretty clear in the past that they are but a small (if central) part of the MySQL ecosystem, and they clearly want to focus on their high-margin customers. Might be a smart move, might not, but it sure opens the door to players who want to seize the other niches.

Re:Why fork it? (1)

dsci (658278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224098)

This is good advice overall, and I'll continue to take a middle ground approach to it. That is, I'll continue to support MySQL (on whatever distro) for my clients. I don't offer general MySQL support, but when I 'design' a system for my clients, I support whatever OSS stuff goes into that system. If MySQL is the best fit for their needs, that's what I recommend. If it needs support, they call ME.

So, I'm not out there selling MySQL support to anybody that wants it, but I do take care of MY clients. That said, I service ONLY small businesses - nothing remotely like the kind of market the MySQL AB team targets, but I think the OSS + Support ecosystem is big/diverse enough to handle a bunch more niche providers like me.

How to commit corporate suicide in OSS (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223478)

How to commit corporate suicide if you're an OSS vendor:

1. Kill support for Linux
2. DieDieDie

Re:How to commit corporate suicide in OSS (1)

Cigamit (200871) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223722)

I believe you forgot a few steps...

3. ????
4. Profit!!

Its an odd business plan, but it always seems to pan out in the end.

Tragic (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223482)

I suppose you could still compile it on any platform, and get support somehow. Maybe this is just their way of cutting costs, I mean, if I had some piece of software, I truly do not believe I could support it on EVERY Distro out there. MySQL is good software, I don't think they should be based for this...until we at least find out the truth why they did it.

Sounds like a business plan waiting to happen (4, Insightful)

xantho (14741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223524)

MySQL just said, 'We don't think that your business is profitable to us,' for whatever reason they might have. Well, I'm willing to bet that MySQL support for Debian in the enterprise setting is plenty profitable for some other people.

The only thing that really happened is that MySQL cleaved off a part of their business and gave it away for free to anyone who wants it. And I'll bet plenty of people do.

Re:Sounds like a business plan waiting to happen (1)

bluephone (200451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223878)

Careful there, that's a reasoned and rational response. That's not going to go over well on Slashdot. ;)

Linux (2, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223532)

"Generic Linux"???

Isn't "Linux" "generic" almost by definition. The only differences between packages are choices and package manager and usually only a few homegrown eye candy pieces.

No really, I'm not trolling. I'm serious. I've used all sorts of different "distros", Redhat, SuSE, Debian, Slackware etc and I am able to quickly move between them because at the core of it, its all but the same. And I'm not a Linux expert by any stretch of the imagination, so if I can manage, why can't the big boys who do nothing but Linux?

Re:Linux (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223810)

The differences are subtle but sometimes important. An example is where each distro puts startup scripts and how they are written. Some are even migrating towards Apple's launchd which is an entirely different animal from the customary SYSV or BSD scripts.

That's not a huge obstacle in and of itself, but multiply little issues like that by a few hundred and it's not so pretty. The Linux Standards Base was supposed to address a lot of that, but no one seems to be clamoring to support it.

Why all the drama? (4, Insightful)

derrickh (157646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223560)

Why is this such a sore spot for so many people? Just because MySql no longer supports the flavor of the month distro of Linux, you all throw up your hands crying 'I never liked you anyway'.

The vast majority of mysql users will never buy a support contract, and those few who do, will probably be RedHat or Suse. (When was the last time a Debian user admitted he needed help for anything?)

Instead of having to support dozens of distros, Mysql is supporting the main two. It may be Open Source, but it's still a business.

D

Re:Why all the drama? (3, Informative)

NorbrookC (674063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224140)

Just because MySql no longer supports the flavor of the month distro of Linux, you all throw up your hands crying 'I never liked you anyway'.

In other news: Oracle announces they'll only support Oracle on Oracle's Linux, Red Hat is selling support for Red Hat Linux, and SuSe announces that it's selling support for SuSe Linux. Canonical announces support for Ubuntu, but not CentOS. Slashdot readers erupt in fury.

This is a business decision. I would bet that they looked at who was actually purchasing support contracts, and what they were running MySQL on. If 95% of your support contracts are running either one of two distros, then that's where you focus. It's not a slap at Debian as a distro, it's a decision reached because most people running Debian/MySQL weren't bothering with support contracts.

Almost there (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223594)

So now they just have to drop RedHat and SUSE and we are finally done? Great!

I've been getting kinda tired of the whole cult surrounding MySQL's substandard "RDBMS".

Of all the posts here (1)

SocietyoftheFist (316444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223640)

Who is actually running MySQL Enterprise?

Re:Of all the posts here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17224262)

I actually purchased it a while back because I wanted to have the option of support if I had problems with it. Problem was that the versions of the "Certified Server" were much older(er.. stable)

Regardless, I removed it about 6 months later and moved my data to the regular old Community Edition. Happy as can be.

The main thing I saw that the Enterprise subscription got you was that you could receive automatic notifications ever time new versions / fixes / etc.. were released but I can get that anyhow. That and a couple phone calls. Nothing to get too excited about but as someone else put it here, if it makes your boss happy that they can call someone if it breaks then go for it.

If you need support... (3, Insightful)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223650)

Chances are that if you need the support they offer, then you are not just running some little fan site using MySQL to store what avatar's people choose. Most likely if you have support for the db, chances are you probably have some sort of support contract in place for the OS as well and the rest of your critical infrastructure. You are probably already playing by their rules using certain OS releases, etc...

That would be my guess at least.

Opportunity for Postgres (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223656)

This looks liike an opportunity for Postgres to come out with some better documentation on installation and configuration of Postgres and attract some new users.

Re:Opportunity for Postgres (2, Interesting)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223792)

Wadya mean? Postgresql is pretty easy to compile from source and I've had zero problems installing it from RPMs, etc. As for it's documentation I have found it to be very useful. What do you mean by configure anyway? You got your conf files that normally live in /var/lib/pgsql and their annotations are pretty clear. So I think your just blowing smoke.

Did anyone catch the relationship? (4, Interesting)

Bright Apollo (988736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223674)

SUSE and RedHat are also the only IBM supported distros. Is IBM going for MySQL, ala Oracle grabbing Innobase and Sleepycat?

-BA

Linux is not enterprise quality (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17223770)

They should drop support for Linux. It is such a hacked together, written by craptastic individuals operating system that is no where near enterprise quality.

Re:Linux is not enterprise quality (1)

Count Fenring (669457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224364)

As opposed to.... what? Windows? VMS? Solaris? Your Mother?

I'm pretty sure that all operating systems, at some point, are hacked together by collections of individuals. How "craptastic" they are may have some variation, but I'd guess that, out of the hundreds of people who worked on Linux, some were "craptastic." Same for Windows. Same for VMS, the BSDs, etc.

I can't tell you if, by and large, the people who worked on any particular OS are "craptastic."

But you sure are!

Ba-ZING!

Varying Levels of Support (1)

Dareth (47614) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223778)

MySQL has varying levels of support for different versions and architectures.

The linked support list was to the Enterprise version, but check out Cluster and MaxDB versions.
Oddly enough, they claim FS - full support for Debian 3.0 on the PowerPC architecture.

No need to fork! (3, Insightful)

Builder (103701) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223868)

There are a lot of calls here to fork the code. I'm a bit wary of calls to fork a project by people who lack the reading comprehension to understand the project. These may not be the best people to direct a project :)

Just to clarify the crappy summary, MySQL are not saying that their software won't run on Debian or Ubuntu or whatever... It will still run on most OSs and distros, but if you are using Linux, MySQL AB will only sell you a support contract for MySQL if you are running on Dead Rat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or Novhell (SLES?).

Get it? Got it? Good!

Demographic question (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223890)

Do many mid-size to large (read shopping for juicy support contracts) enterprises use Debian?

No Free alternatives.... (1)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223898)

SO, essentially they are giving you no Linux distros that are totally known for their freedom. Only Red Hat and SuSE for Linux flavors and Solaris, AIX and Windows for the others. Really dumb guys, but not really that much of a concern. Someone else can step up and support MySQL. No big deal in the long run I guess except it gives people less choice initially if their job requires them to have a support contract and believe me alot of companies require this as silly as it sounds. What I see happening is some other Linux company will step up and support MySQL as well as their OS.

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17223990)

Wow, i am very happy about this!

As a Database Programmer (and erstwhile DBA) i am saddened by the haphazard mySQL being called a database. For a while it didn't even support transactions. It's actually more of a storage system with a quai-SQL front end.

By dropping that facade from Debian people might be more inclined to use a real database such as PostgreSQL, which has been in the background for much too long.

For the quality that Debian stands for, from my PoV, this is a very good thing.

I would talk of progress here, but Progress is by far the absolute worst database system i have worked with. :)

MySQL is a ``real'' database (1, Interesting)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224220)

It may not be an ACID compliant transactional DBMS. It certainly isn't a fully relational DBMS. But the definition of a database is pretty much a system for storing data which MySQL certainly qualifies as. And if we're going to start being pedantic, we also have to consider that none of the mainstream enterprise databases are truly relational. While they may have many relational features, none can consistently enforce proper relational behavior. In fact, any database that fully supports SQL cannot be a fully relational database. The only difference between Oracle, SQL Server, DB/2 and MySQL is one of extent, not of kind.

Who cares (3, Insightful)

houseofmore (313324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17224280)

I've been using Mysql for many years, through several companies, small and large. Never once has mysql support ever been requested / needed -- it's rock solid. What does support conist of anyway, help with sql syntax?

I doubt most Debian users will care.

Debian is the second largest GNU/Linux distro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17224302)

From the Netcraft's GNU/Linux distribution share stats [netcraft.com] :

RH - 34%,
Debian - 25%
Suse - 11%

--
In any case, our company runs Postgresql so we are not likely to loose any sleep over this decision.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?