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 Ends Enterprise Server Source Tarballs

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the new-tactic-in-open-sorcery dept.

Databases 413

vboulytchev writes "The folks at MySQL has quietly announced that it will no longer be distributing the MySQL Enterprise Server source as a tarball. It's been about a year since the split between the paid and free versions of the database project. The Enterprise Server code is still under the GNU General Public License (GPL), and as a result MySQL appears to be making it harder for non-customers to access the source code. 'One of the things that many users worry about is whether they're getting an inferior version of MySQL by using the Community version. Urlocker says that MySQL "wants to make sure the Community version is rock solid," but admitted that the company has introduced features into the Community edition of the software that "[weren't] as robust as we thought, and created some instabilities." Because of that, the company is revising its policies about when features go into the Community releases.'" Update: 08/10 04:56 GMT by CN :While it is slightly harder to get, the source isn't closed by any means, so I updated the title to reflect that.

cancel ×

413 comments

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

In related news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175689)

MySQL announced plans for a new BitTorrent based distributed backend.

Where the FUCK is iLife '07??? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175801)

Come ON you homosexual deviants in Cupertino. QUIT FUCKING AROUND and update your fucking software every so often. You mincing faggots are worse than Debian...

Re:Where the FUCK is iLife '07??? (-1, Offtopic)

R00BYtheN00BY (1118945) | about 7 years ago | (#20175825)

black Poeple ABLAKC people BVLAKC people plz plsppl ppl PBALCK blaokdfk OAPEOPLE blacvk PBLACK BLACK people BLACK Blpeloplpplplplplpll BLACK BLACK ppl AAa aapll ppl black blac nigg

Uh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175853)

Apple released iLife '08 a couple days ago. It was even on the front page of Slashdot.

Re:In related news (5, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 7 years ago | (#20175855)

Wow...

The same guys who lied about the suitability of their code for various purposes from day one

The same guys who maintained that ACID was unimportant until the very moment they had it

The same guys who have been setting this up for years with their Project Mayo/DivX Networks style licensing/contribution scheme

You mean they actually went ahead and tried to use shady shenanigans to force developers who have no need for anything from their organization whatsoever beyond a copy of the community developed codebase to pay for access to the codebase?

Wow. What a surprise.

I made a decision to give preference to PostgreSQL over MySQL in my developments... not because of the technical merits involved, but because of the repeatedly demonstrated lack of trustworthiness of the MySQL team.

I didn't expect to see my decision validated in such a rapid and undeniable fashion though.

Just goes to show... technical skill is no substitute for good character or lack thereof.

Re:In related news (4, Informative)

utopianfiat (774016) | about 7 years ago | (#20176241)

fuck you zonk!
no, I've had enough of your bullshit! take this goddamn article down right fucking now and change the title you worthless fucking excuse for a yellow journalist! For fucksake you READ the goddamn article before you post it, I HOPE.
Fucking immune from moderation troll-assed motherfucker, I will sacrifice my "excellent" karma to bring you down!

Say what? (2, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | about 7 years ago | (#20176289)

fuck you zonk!
no, I've had enough of your bullshit! take this goddamn article down right fucking now and change the title you worthless fucking excuse for a yellow journalist! For fucksake you READ the goddamn article before you post it, I HOPE.
Fucking immune from moderation troll-assed motherfucker, I will sacrifice my "excellent" karma to bring you down!
Anyone want to clue me in on what's going on there? And what all the yelling is about?

Re:Say what? (5, Informative)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 7 years ago | (#20176375)

The title does not accurately reflect the summary or the real state of affairs. It is sensationalist in the extreme.

Re:Say what? (0)

bladesjester (774793) | about 7 years ago | (#20176381)

Sudden onset of Turret's Syndrome?
Self-administered electro-shock therapy?
Twitter has a new account?

Account Hacked !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176303)

This is utopianfiat. Some tarball hacked my account. Disregard.

Hmm.. First Bittorrent (1)

NickCatal (865805) | about 7 years ago | (#20175705)

After Bittorrent yesterday is this a trend that we should be worried about, or really just 2 separate instances?

Re:Hmm.. First Bittorrent (1)

tgatliff (311583) | about 7 years ago | (#20176159)

Why do I get the feeling that there will be a Torrent for MySQL Enterprise Server source? :-)

Whatever THEY want (5, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | about 7 years ago | (#20176399)

Whatever it is, they are in their perfect rights to do what they want with THEIR code.

This is actually the tendence that worries me. These days many people (thankfully not everybody) think they have the RIGHT to get everything for free. One bitches because product X is not Open Source (Ohh what a crime!!!). The other bitches because X (which VERY GENEROUSLY was giving many years of hard work to people who don't even write a line of code) is taking their hard work back for Y reasons (yes, making a buck for many years of hard work is not a bad thing , you know)

Another funny thing: I was talking to a man here at work. The man is a a rabious defender of OS. He wouldn't touch a non- OS program, he almost cried when MS made a deal with Novell, he screams how much he hates Photoshop and how great Gimp is (just because is OS)... And guess what? He develops a very good backup solution for databases and he takes good money for it. He was having some difficulties adding features. Knowing how good of an OS supporter he was I had the nerve to suggest to him to open the source of his program. ARE YOU FUCKING MAD?- he said. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD I WORK FOR THIS SHIT? AND I WOULD GIVE IT TO THE DOGS?....

Moral of the story. If you work hard for your work and wnat to share , so be it. If you want to get your work back iand this is posible, just do it. You have the right. people will bitch, people will call you a shit, people will hate you... And yet, the majority of them won't share a shit either giving the oportunity.

Making money is not a crime folks....

Let me be the first to say... (2, Insightful)

securityfolk (906041) | about 7 years ago | (#20175709)

Buh-bye... was fun while it lasted!

Ooh, look at ME! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175713)

Look at ME! I'm MySQL! I'm a "real database!"

Re:Ooh, look at ME! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175725)

Oh well, there is always PostgreSQL... Hopefully some development can move to there.

Re:Ooh, look at ME! (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#20175817)

Oh well, there is always PostgreSQL... Hopefully some development can move to there.

as someone who uses PostgreSQL, i hope not.

Cha-Ching (2, Interesting)

happy_place (632005) | about 7 years ago | (#20175733)

I don't suppose this is an attempt to get more money?

Re:Cha-Ching (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#20175871)

They are planning an IPO [slashdot.org] .

Yay! (4, Insightful)

Bluesman (104513) | about 7 years ago | (#20175737)

Can we all just switch to Postgres now?

Cheap web hosting, I'm looking at you...

Re:Yay! (2, Informative)

scribblej (195445) | about 7 years ago | (#20175827)

You can get a VPS for $10 a month, put postgresql on it yourself. It is what I do. I don't know what you consider cheap but $10/month isn't a burden over here.

Re:Yay! (1)

nuzak (959558) | about 7 years ago | (#20175973)

You can get shared hosting for $10/month. Where are you finding VPS's for that price?

Re:Yay! (0, Offtopic)

GiMP (10923) | about 7 years ago | (#20176073)

There are VPS plans for only $5/mo, although they get tight with resources in that price range.

There are various vps comparison pages out there, such as as well as [vpschoice.com] . Personally, I'm affiliated with [webhostingtalk.com] VPS Village [vpsvillage.com] .

Re:Yay! (2, Informative)

GiMP (10923) | about 7 years ago | (#20176103)

Whoops, should've used "preview", I'll just avoid the links this time... vpschoice.com provides a list of a number of inexpensive providers, although it is not all-inclusive. There is also a list on the Xen Wiki, and probably on the OpenVZ wiki too. Webhostingtalk.com can be a good resource, but be careful there... And personally, I'm associated with VPS Village (vpsvillage.com)

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176291)

I use RapidVPS. Their cheapest plan is $10/month. It's pretty basic but it does the job.

Re:Yay! (1)

Pizentios (772582) | about 7 years ago | (#20175833)

I agree, Postgresql is far better.

Re:Yay! (1)

timelorde (7880) | about 7 years ago | (#20175935)

So what'll the new acronym be? LAPP?

Re:Yay! (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#20176205)

FAPP: FreeBSD Apache, PostgreSQL, Perl.

First Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175739)

goatsec

Open Source as a Business Model (0, Troll)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 7 years ago | (#20175747)

Open Source may be an excellent model for developing software,
but I don't think it's a good business model.

As & when more Open Source businesses become a little
successfull, we will surely see some of them do what MySQL
has done.

Yeah, real bad. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 7 years ago | (#20175809)

Companies like redhat, SUSE, and even IBM are ALL suffering.

Re:Yeah, real bad. (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 7 years ago | (#20175999)

I am glad you mentioned them:

Yes if those are your poster boys for Open Source = business making money I think it says quite a bit.

Let's compare this to companies that either sell software only or software as a service with no sources.

Google, Yahoo, Symantec, Microsoft, Amazon, SAP, Oracle, and so on. These companies are BILLION dollar companies, and IBM while a billion dollar company is more hardware and services. If Redhat, and Suse after a decade are not even reaching the billion dollar mark. And IBM, well they are doing ok, but have not grown their income as much as Open Source should have.

No, I think the grand parent poster is right. Open Source as a business model is not changing the game...

In addition, have you RTFA? (4, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 7 years ago | (#20175849)

It says that the source will no longer be shipped as a tarball. You now have to take it out of bitkeeper. IOW, you still get the source.

Re:In addition, have you RTFA? (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#20176265)

bitkeeper is not FREE software. I cannot use it in good conscience, and neither should you. For all intents and purposes, their source code is locked away.

Re:Open Source as a Business Model (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176033)

I think this is caused by people and companies not supporting open source with their wallets, but instead just paying lip service to it.

I work for an open source company and the number of calls we get from people demanding support for something they just downloaded from SourceForge has caused us to provide our paying customers with a different "priority" telephone number.

When we politely tell these people that we require they purchase a support package to receive telephone support, they usually get pissed off and hang up. Some try to convince you that they will buy support if we would *just* help them with this one little problem first, heh.

Don't get me wrong, the business model works, but if you have investors I can understand how they would want to close the source if they feel it would convert some of these non-paying customers into paying ones.

If only companies would look at the long-term and realize that if this free software saved us X-thousands of dollars, its well worth it to spend even 1/10th of the money they saved to support it and ensure its longevity. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way though.

Interesting trend (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175765)

I wonder how many other projects will start pulling this -- get the world hooked on your product, and then close the source after you reach a critical mass of commercial users who are likely to pay versus those who would be prone to forking and taking over open development. I think it's ignorant to assume people will just take the last open version and fork it to continue being free - there are commercial users who will likely be quite happy to deal with the closed version they trust. Hell - look at sourceforge -- they closed off their source, and do you see companies installing the GNU fork of the code internally? No - they buy the commercial sourceforge. It'll be interesting to see how many companies follow this trend.

Re:Interesting trend (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175923)

This is the next step on from creating a second-class citizen 'community' codebase.

MySQL.com have always tacked open source on as an afterthought.
Their contributor agreement is effectively
'thanks, your patch, copyright and patents belong to us now, but here's a free t-shirt for your trouble'.

http://forge.mysql.com/contribute/cla.php [mysql.com]

I hope this makes some of the bazillion webapps
that couldn't be bothered to support other databases realise all their eggs are in a pretty ropey basket right now.

Re:Interesting trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176095)

hey kid..... take this home to your friends..... this time it's free...... next time, bring money.

Except MySQL isn't a project (1)

Decibel (5099) | about 7 years ago | (#20176443)

MySQL hasn't been a project for a long time (if ever)... it's a commercial application that happens to also be GPL'd. The vast majority of the development is done by MySQL AB, and other than users there isn't really much of a community. I'm not saying this is wrong, but MySQL isn't a project.

FreeBSD provides a good (non-database to avoid the flamewar) counter-point. While there are some commercial contributors, there is absolutely no commercial control of the project. What control does exist does so in the context of a meritocracy.

The source hasn't gone anywhere. (3, Informative)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 7 years ago | (#20175775)

http://mysql.bkbits.net/ [bkbits.net] is still there, and AFAIK it isn't going away anytime soon.

Re:The source hasn't gone anywhere. (1)

tgatliff (311583) | about 7 years ago | (#20176255)

Exactly.. They also did not change their GPL license because they know what it would mean... Meaning, if MySQL AB changed their license to a closed source format people would just fork the last version that was open, which is the beautiful thing about GPL. In BitTorrents case, why do we even care what the original creator of torrents are doing?

The real purpose of their move was to try to create the perception that their paid offering has more value than their free version to business people. Meaning, if I was a business person who just paid thousands of dollars, I want to feel like I am getting something better than a 15 year old kid can get downloading it from his basement.

Wait a second.... (0)

Pizentios (772582) | about 7 years ago | (#20175789)

If the enterprise edition is still under the GNU public license, how is it legal for them to close off the source code to the general public? From my understanding, when you use the GNU license you have to distribute the code with the binaries and cannot sell the code for profit.

Are they just selling as a service, or are they making profit from selling the code? Have i just mis-read the GNU license?

Re:Wait a second.... (1, Informative)

hardburn (141468) | about 7 years ago | (#20175869)

If they own all the copyrights to the source, they can license it however they want.

Additionally, the requirements to release the source only apply to derivative works. In theory, the original copyright holder could put a binary release under the GPL without providing any source code.

Re:Wait a second.... (2, Informative)

Alchemar (720449) | about 7 years ago | (#20176115)

They can not release their own code under the GPL and not release the source because the GPL itself is protected under copyright and trademark laws. By not releasing the source, then they are releasing under a different license but calling it GPL which dilutes the GPL trademark. They are free to distribute under the license of their choice, but they cannot change an existing license and call it the same thing. This would also be considered fraud, because the person receiving the binary would have a reasonable expectation that since it was advertised as GPL and GPL requires source that they advertised they would also provide the source code. If they want to make a new "MySQL" license that has 99% of the same things as the GPL with one or two restrictions, they are also free to do that, just don't try and call the new license GPL.

To answer the parent's parent, people distributing GPL code can charge whatever they want for the binary, the requirement is that they must also provide the source code with it, and cannot limit the distribution of the source except as provided by the GPL, so the first person buys it for $insane_dollars and then distributes the source to all his friends, family, and bittorrent. There is no requirement to make GPL code with no cost, it just has an inherent driving force that leads to that end

Re:Wait a second.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176285)

And if they find themselves infringing on the terms of the GPL then they will surely sue themselves for $LOTS :)

Re:Wait a second.... (1, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | about 7 years ago | (#20175875)

Because they are the copyright holder and they are allowed to dictate whatever licensing terms they want for their own stuff. The GPL doesn't trump that. The only reason a person is obligated to put modifications to GPL'd code under the GPL is because that falls under the category of a derivative work and is thus subject to the copyright restrictions of the original. MYSQL, being their own code entirely, and not a derivative of somebody else's GPL'd project, can be put under whatever distribution terms and licensing they want... even closing up the source.

You've misread the terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175903)

You can sell the code for a profit. That's the whole idea. I can literally take any GPL project and sell it for money. Nobody will buy it, but it is perfectly legal according to the GPL. Also you can buy the GPL software I sell you, and distribute it for free, which is also okay under the terms of the GPL. You and I just need to include the source code, or make it available.

Now since MYSQL owns rights to the code, they are also free to change the license at any time, though the currently distributed version are still under GPL.

Re:You've misread the terms (3, Informative)

penix1 (722987) | about 7 years ago | (#20176197)

You are spot on with one problem....

Code that was "contributed" doesn't belong to MySQL but to the individual authors. Unless they have something assigning the rights to MySQL (always a possibility since I don't use MySQL I wouldn't know) those copyrights still belong to the authors of that code. In short, they would still need the "official" OK in some form from the authors (ALL of them) of the code. That is why a license change is always something to be avoided where GPL is concerned.

Re:Wait a second.... (2, Informative)

AxXium (964226) | about 7 years ago | (#20175905)

They have to distribute the "Enterprise" source along with the "Enterprise" binaries. They do not have to ship the "Enterprise" source with the "Community" stuff. On I side note they say they will not stand between one of the "Enterprise" customers hosting the source. :) AxXium

Re:Wait a second.... (4, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 7 years ago | (#20175919)

If they provide the source code along with the binaries, the GPL considers that to have satisfied their obligations. After that, they're not obliged to give the source code to anybody else. Not even customers.

Now, if they don't provide the source code with the binaries, if customers are obliged to get it separately from the binary package, then the obligation is to provide the source to anybody who asks for it, customer or not, and that obligation lasts for 3 years after the last binary was distributed. Note that if the binaries are available via download, offering the source for download at the same time and from the same page satisfies the GPL's requirement to provide source along with the binaries even if the customer doesn't actually download the source code at the time.

Re:Wait a second.... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175933)

Yeah, those damn MySQL idiots are acting just like this crazy Emacs hippie back in the 80s... what was his name... Richard Stallman I think. Anyway, the greedy bugger only distributed the source to people who bought the software! Even though it was GPL'd! And the FSF did nothing!

PLEASE MOD PARENT UP (2)

pfedor (891281) | about 7 years ago | (#20176427)

The parent's point is exactly true. Richard Stallman was selling copies of Emacs, using his own words "making a living" out of it, and proudly gives it as an example of a business model built around Free Software. Claims that MySQL AB violates the letter or the spirit of GNU GPL by charging money for the Enterprise version of its product are false and ignorant.

Re:Wait a second.... (2, Informative)

gr3kgr33n (824960) | about 7 years ago | (#20175945)

IANAL however to my knowledge, The GNU doesn't say you can't make a profit, only that the source code has to be available to your customers and all contributers to the project thus far have a say in any re-licensing and/or distribution.

AFAIK the IP holder retains the rights to whom it considers "customers" therefor decides whom may access the source based on who has legal rights to the product. Transgaming, RedHat, MySQL, et al.

Re:Wait a second.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176317)

"The GNU doesn't say you can't make a profit"

They'll fix that in version 4.

Re:Wait a second.... (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | about 7 years ago | (#20175951)

it's illegal for you to take their code and do that, but the copyright holder can change the license any time- but old versions stay under their license.

Re:Wait a second.... (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 7 years ago | (#20175953)

If the enterprise edition is still under the GNU public license, how is it legal for them to close off the source code to the general public?

Because the GPL only requires that you give source to those to whom you give or sell binaries.

Now, they can't prevent those to whom you give or sell binaries from redistributing it...

Re:Wait a second.... (1)

Yaztromo (655250) | about 7 years ago | (#20175965)

If the enterprise edition is still under the GNU public license, how is it legal for them to close off the source code to the general public? From my understanding, when you use the GNU license you have to distribute the code with the binaries and cannot sell the code for profit.

Well, it appears they are already selling the Enterprise Server. And according to the article summary, they're still making it available to customers who purchase the binaries. As such, they are completely above board in terms of the GPL (remember, with the GPL you only have to make the source available to anyone you give the binaries to. It doesn't specify that you can't charge for the binaries, or that the source has to be made available on the web for anyone to get hold of. Note as well that you also don't have to provide the source with the binaries -- you simply have to make it available upon request in a suitably usable standard form).

Yaz.

Re:Wait a second.... (2, Informative)

chromatic (9471) | about 7 years ago | (#20176177)

As such, they are completely above board in terms of the GPL....

As the copyright holder, they are completely above board in terms of the GPL. It doesn't apply to them.

Re:Wait a second.... (1)

Yaztromo (655250) | about 7 years ago | (#20176431)

True enough -- admittedly as someone who doesn't typically have direct contact with DBMS', I didn't know if MySQL had contributors reassign copyright (that is, if they were the sole and only copyright holders for the work).

Note however that if they are distributing their own code to users with a GPL license attached, they still have to make sources available, otherwise their customers would have a license to redistribute the binary code, but without the ability to satisfy clause 3 of the license (which isn't necessarily improper, but would make the GPL attached to the distributed binaries moot). This appears to be what MySQL is indeed doing -- they're still providing source to their own customers.

If /. MySQL users are that incensed over this, they should start a fund to buy one copy of MySQL Enterprise Server, get the sources for it, and then host those sources themselves.

Yaz.

Re:Wait a second.... (1)

drix (4602) | about 7 years ago | (#20175995)

They own the copyright and can presumably to whatever they want. Certainly they won't waste time on the futile effort of trying to put the cat back in the bag--past source releases are out there for anyone to play with. But going forward, they don't have to release anything, and that will probably be enough to signal the death-knell for the open source version of the enterprise server. Typically with an open source "enterprise" app, the only people who know anything about what's going on in the code are under the employ of the company that wants to unfree it. It's very challenging and unrewarding for an outsider to try to pick up all the pieces and start where they left off, particularly since by definition the only people who are realizing incremental benefit are large enterprises making money off your free efforts. In that sense, I sympathize with companies who don't feel the pull of opening their enterprise applications. Why let some other capitalist make a buck off your hard work?

Re:Wait a second.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176059)

From what I can tell, you only get the source of the "Enterprise" edition if you buy the "Enterprise" edition. Kind of like what Red Hat sometimes thinks of doing. (But Red Hat has a concious, so CentOS lives on)

IIRC, their community version will still be fully GPL'ed.

But this is yet another good reason to use PostgreSQL.

Copyright (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | about 7 years ago | (#20176069)

...and cannot sell the code for profit.

This is a common misconception. You CAN sell GPL code. The GPL specifically allows it. The only thing you must do is provide the source code (in one way or another) and the only thing you can't do is include additional restrictions.

As the other posters have pointed out, the copyright owner has the right to dual license the software (offer the software under more than one license). The GPL is not law, but an open ended contract. It is permission to copy the code if certain conditions are met. This doesn't mean that the copyright owner can give permission under other conditions as well.

On the other hand, who is the copyright owner of patches and bug fixes submitted to them? IANAL, but it would seem to me that this could be a legal problem. For example, Sun requires anybody working on/patching Open Office to have a record on file delegating copyright of patches back to Sun. If MySQL AB doesn't do something like this, how do they plan to fend off lawsuits? (frivolous or legitimate)

Re:Copyright (1)

chromatic (9471) | about 7 years ago | (#20176229)

On the other hand, who is the copyright owner of patches and bug fixes submitted to them?

MySQL AB requires copyright assignment for submitted patches.

FUD about less profitable product from same ... (2, Insightful)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | about 7 years ago | (#20175811)

... company is obviously designed to move people to buy the product that gives them more income.
This sounds just like the FUD that microsoft guy made by "admitting" that XP has problems in the hopes that people will move to vista.
I think it's best to simply ignore the marketing people. There are no "instabilities" in the stable community version above and beyond the normal cycle of bugs and bugfixes you see in any software.

Rock solid... Far from it unfortunately... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175813)

MySQL versions 5.0.38 to 5.0.45 have had such major bugs that they have rendered themselves useless for a huge range of applications. Applications that use dates, or ones that expect the database to *NOT* insert random NULL values in a group by query.

I mean, even the most basic test suite would have easily caught these.

Here are just a few of the major ones:
Bug #28336 [mysql.com]
Bug #28936 [mysql.com]

Re:Rock solid... Far from it unfortunately... (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 7 years ago | (#20175889)

Eeek. We just upgraded to 5.0.45. What's a good, stable version?

Re:Rock solid... Far from it unfortunately... (5, Interesting)

linuxwrangler (582055) | about 7 years ago | (#20176151)

PostgreSQL 8.2.4. :)

Thank goodness I did my homework and selected PostgreSQL and not, as one consultant suggested, MySQL back when we selected the database for our application. I've never had it crash and on the few occasions where it was unceremoniously shutdown (accidental powerdown and such), it's always come right back up with no data loss. And it's just been getting better by leaps and bounds.

They need a name change (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | about 7 years ago | (#20175815)

Let me be the first to suggest UseToBeMySQL or NowItsNotYourSQL. Or better yet SoldOutMySQL. SQLMoneyWhore might not fly but then again offensive names don't seem to be a problem with open source (I'm thinking of GIMP).

Re:They need a name change (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175883)

Since it's currently in a state after being MySQL, I propose we confuse everybody by calling it PostMySQL.

Re:They need a name change (2, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | about 7 years ago | (#20175989)

How about TheirSQL?

Or more descriptively, NotSQL? That one's almost a Godwin.

Re:They need a name change (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 years ago | (#20176101)

No.. fork it and call it OurSQL.

and GIMP is not offensive enough, try showing how you discovered that the network needed redesign because you used a program called Etherape to map it for the PHB's. they for some reason see RAPE in it instead of APE.

Problem is 90% of all forks die unless the fork is created by a large portion of the original devs or supporting devs.

PostgreSQL here we come. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175821)

That's what competition is for.

Official PostgreSQL fanboi thread here :-) (5, Interesting)

adnonsense (826530) | about 7 years ago | (#20175829)

My take: while MySQL has improved technically in leaps and bounds over the last couple of years, stuff like this (or having its transactional backends bought out from under it by Oracle) makes it increasingly difficult for me to recommend it as a business proposition to my clients. Meanwhile PostgreSQL continues to get the job done for the majority of my projects; I have a network of professionals who support it competently; and having followed the project since 2001 or so, I'm confident it's not going anywhere but forwards.

Re:Official PostgreSQL fanboi thread here :-) (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 years ago | (#20175901)

Yeah, could you please somehow persuade the people at cPanel to get it installed by default on a new server? It's an absolute bitch to use with cPanel unfortunately, because their software is tailor-made to work with one of 2 version of mySQL. :-S

Re:Official PostgreSQL fanboi thread here :-) (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 7 years ago | (#20176001)

No offense, but I doubt the people that need to use cPanel could figure out how to use Postgres.

Re:Official PostgreSQL fanboi thread here :-) (1)

hardburn (141468) | about 7 years ago | (#20176029)

That's not the only reason why hosting companies use things like cPanel. It's because if they didn't, they'd have to give you far more unrestricted access to the system, which is obviously bad on a shared hosting environment.

Re:Official PostgreSQL fanboi thread here :-) (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#20176333)

user mode linux to the rescue!

Re:Official PostgreSQL fanboi thread here :-) (1)

buanzo (542591) | about 7 years ago | (#20176219)

Yes. When I was asked to coordinate a team of designers and programmers to create the first argentinian webmail, portal and news company (dot.com bubble), we analyzed ALL available FLOSS RDBMS. Even at that early stage, PostgreSQL was FAR superior to MySQL at the integrity and complexity (ie "sql standards it supported") and manageability levels. Of course, you had to tweak it for all queries, but that's what a good DBA does anyway :)

Yes, it's legal (3, Informative)

Carnildo (712617) | about 7 years ago | (#20175847)

Before anyone bitches about it, this is perfectly legal. The GPL only requires you to provide source code to people who you also provide the compiled software to. You just can't restrict what they in turn do with the source code, which is why most GPL developers make the source code available to everyone and their dog.

This is no big deal. (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 7 years ago | (#20175865)

It's right in keeping with the GPL. The GPL doesn't say "you have to give the source to all and sundry." No, they just have to give the source code to those they gave the binaries to, i.e., their paying customers.

The work-around for the community is hinted at here:

"Though MySQL AB will not be distributing the source tarball, Urlocker says that MySQL isn't going to try to stop distribution of Enterprise Server source by others. "If somebody wants to, that's fine. People can distribute it.... "

Getting the source code as a tarball on a public server for everyone is an intellectual exercize for the reader.

I read this as a "We're not going to be hosting for leeches. You want a public server, set your own up"

--
BMO

Re:This is no big deal. (2)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | about 7 years ago | (#20176217)

Yes. The title of this article really was misleading, especially with that one about BitTorrent the other day - saying that they're "closing off" their source makes it sound like they were planning on going fully closed-source.

Re:This is no big deal. (3, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 7 years ago | (#20176387)

Not technically correct. They can limit giving the source code to only their customers if and only if they provide the source code along with the binaries. If they provide the source code seperately, then the GPL requires them to offer the source code to any third party that asks for it for at least 3 years from their last binary distribution. This is because any party who receives the binary is entitled to the source even if they didn't get it directly from MySQL AB.

Does this surprise anybody? (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | about 7 years ago | (#20175887)

after all, it is called MY SQL, not your SQL, or her SQL.

Terrible submission (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20175899)

"The folks at MySQL has quietly..." thats just awful, I know we don't read the articles... but we aren't even reading the first sentence of the submission now?

Re:Terrible submission (1)

SoTuA (683507) | about 7 years ago | (#20176371)

Can I has grammr?

Makes me glad that RubyForge... (1)

tcopeland (32225) | about 7 years ago | (#20175979)

....is on PostgreSQL [blogs.com] . Good stuff!

Not closing anything. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176031)

There's nothing "closed" about the source to MySQL Enterprise Server. It's still under the GPL. MySQL AB is simply choosing not to make the source accessible from their ftp servers to the general public, which doesn't stop anyone else from choosing to distribute it themselves.

I smell a fork coming soon. (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 years ago | (#20176063)

Lots of OSS projects use Mysql. If they want to take their ball and go home, so bet it. we can take a tarball and create OurSQL.

Come on people this is what OSS is all about. forking and starting a new project because the current project leaders became poopwads.

Two ways I can think of to go now... (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 years ago | (#20176119)

A MySQL fork: "OurSQL" or something like that

or

A general shift to PostgreSQL... seems a lot of people are favoring that route.

I don't care which way it goes, the community will respond and MySQL will become irrelevant.

Bad timing (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 7 years ago | (#20176133)

Why couldn't these have happened at the end of March? Linux, GCC and Emacs to close source would have been fantastic April fools followups.

GPL Question (0, Offtopic)

Saint Stephen (19450) | about 7 years ago | (#20176181)

I'm writing a framework for Windows Services and Apps in C#. I want to keep the source code to the libraries "commercial," and make the four sample apps I write to test it with LGPL3.

I own the copyright to everything. Can I do this?

(I know it's OT but I don't want to go register on a list just to ask one GPL question.)

Re:GPL Question (1)

MSG (12810) | about 7 years ago | (#20176397)

No, you can't. GPL and LGPL applications can't depend on proprietary libraries, unless those libraries are a standard part of the platform on which the application runs.

Re:GPL Question (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | about 7 years ago | (#20176417)

How about commercial framework + BSD apps? Or should I just classify everything as commercial and give away the source to the apps under some ambiguous license.

The point is I want to keep the good bits just for me but I don't care if other people use my stuff.

Community to MySQL (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 7 years ago | (#20176203)

"Fork you!"

Really, it's that simple when you have GPL software.

what I wonder is if they are using .... (1)

3seas (184403) | about 7 years ago | (#20176245)

...the community version as a test bed for the enterprise version, which in that case it becomes clear that there is an imbalance or dismissal of the value of the community users, an abuse if you will.

The GPL was intended to remove such abuses. The GPL v3 is intended to do the same thing but in consideration of the fraud of software patents. But the point is clear, the GPL in general is to prevent abuses.

On the slip side, there is nothing preventing someone who has access to the enterprise version from making it available to the community users. Or would that be considered an abuse of a paying customer?

Reconsidering my Enterprise Order (4, Interesting)

MattW (97290) | about 7 years ago | (#20176307)

By discouraging people from getting and using the Enterprise version, I feel less and less safe deploying it myself. Less users = less chances to catch problems. Less code = less review = less security.

I'm about to deploy 4 MySQL servers for some serious volume and was strongly considering buying into an enterprise package, largely on the strength of their monitoring tool, but now I'm seriously thinking it's time to try Postgres.

Inferior version (2, Informative)

bl8n8r (649187) | about 7 years ago | (#20176345)

"One of the things that many users worry about is whether they're getting an
inferior version of MySQL by using the Community version."

They already have SCO, how much more inferior can they get.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/04/173022 5 [slashdot.org]

Wasnt this predicted? (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 years ago | (#20176357)

I dont think anyone is really suprised.

PostgreSQL is still free and more powerful anyway so no great loss.

The new name is... (1)

Dealer MacDope (630648) | about 7 years ago | (#20176363)

They should rename it TheirSQL.

WeSQL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20176405)

Well, time to make the WeSQL community oriented fork. Fuck MySQL AB and its totalitarian ways.
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>