Drizzle Hits General Availability 146
snydeq writes "MySQL fork Drizzle has been released for general availability, giving companies a viable alternative to Oracle-owned MySQL, InfoWorld reports. 'Organizations that have been seeking a less-expensive alternative to Oracle's brand of MySQL — or a variant devoid of feature bloat — now have an option that Drizzle's creators deem ready to package in Linux distributions.'"
Drizzle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In a world of googling, tweeting, and blogging, do snazzy names really matter any more?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Drizzle? (Score:4, Insightful)
PostgreSQL was already taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SqlDog? ("sequel dog")
Re:Drizzle? (Score:4, Funny)
Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?
This was their second choice. The first wanted to call it GonorrheaDB, but the development team agreed that they should only use that name in case Twitter was interested in using it as a backend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are similar-sounding words in Czech, Russian, Polish and other Eastern European languages where it means "idiot" or "moron".
What would be the Russian word that sounds similar to "mongo" and means "idiot"? 'cause I'm Russian and I don't know one...
Re: (Score:2)
I always associate it with a a very large, dumb person [youtube.com]. I always assumed that's where it got its name. Capable of some heavily lifting but completely without out any smarts. Basically, all brawns and no brains. Regardless, seems like a good fit even if its not by intension.
"Oh no. Oh no. Don't do that. If you shoot him, you'll just make him mad."
Re: (Score:2)
It basically is a pile of horse shit that's advocated by morons and idiots
Thought you might enjoy this [youtube.com], if you haven't already seen it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drizzle is like a stream of bat's piss (Score:2)
It "shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark."
Was that one of Wilde's? Very witty . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Normally here is where I would complain that SQL should have been named "squirrel" and they should have named drizzle that. But it seems since the last time I went on a rant about that, someone actually has named an SQL related utility "squirrel." So I guess I'll shut up now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They wanted name to speak for itself (Score:2)
... but jizzle was already taken.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?
Fo' shizzle!
Re: (Score:2)
"Drizzle - A database for the cloud"
"Lightweight database for Web applications and Cloud infrastructure"
I see what they did there.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?
Fo' Shizzle
Re: (Score:2)
For sure, my druid?
Re: (Score:2)
Please (Score:2, Funny)
Please name open source projects better. "Hey boss, lets build all these sites on top of Drizzle."
Maybe some high profile OSS guys can help fund or start some kind of OSS naming service.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe some high profile OSS guys can help fund or start some kind of OSS naming service.
That's always an option, but you just know that they'll give the organization a terrible name.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for contacting Zerrodong! The suggested names for your project follow...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just tell them it's "Hg", rather than "Mercurial".
Better yet, tell them that you're going to use MVC (Mercurial Version Control). If they google that, they'll find out that, whatever the hell it is, everyone says it's a good thing to do.
Less Expensive? (Score:2)
Less expensive? I thought MySql was free? Any MySql admins here? Are there certain features (grid, flashback, partitioning) that aren't available with the free version?
Re: (Score:2)
You are taking the comment out of context. Of course you can get MySQL free, but sometimes in some cases, you don't run it for free. (and for good reason)
How does Master Shake feel about this? (Score:2)
Does the Drizzle know that they have named a MySQL fork after him?
Like the name. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm just glad they didn't give it some dumb, stilted name like "LibreSQL".
Re: (Score:2)
Dude... I'm french (well I used to be), and I think LibreOffice is a shit name. It's a word 99% of the world can't properly speak or spell, and all because of that dumb FLOSS acronym that came about because the english word "Free" lacks specificity. English is the Visual Basic of human languages: easy, popular, but man does it ever suck for all but the most basic tasks.
API License? (Score:3)
I seem to remember that many years ago, before Sun bought MySQL AB, the license for the library needed to access the database from your own programs was GPL (not LGPL), and MySQL AB claimed you couldn't use it without open-sourcing your code, unless you paid them for a commercial-use license. Has that changed with Drizzle (i.e., have they written a new API so they can choose a different license)? Their license page [drizzle.org] says:
Drizzle is licensed under both the GPLv2 and BSD license. The core of Drizzle was forked from MySQL and thus is under GPLv2. Derived work from GPLv2 code will stay GPLv2, as the license states...
which doesn't give any detail about which parts are still GPL and which parts are now BSD.
Re:API License? (Score:4, Informative)
Hi Bill,
The main code is GPLv2, the libdrizzle client library is BSD and the docs are CC BY SA 3.0
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the reply. That's a significant feature.
Re: (Score:1)
I think most of the drivers are now under the BSD style license so that fixes that issue.
http://wiki.drizzle.org/JDBC
Who cares? No one. (Score:1)
I've seen nothing in Drizzle that was so compelling that it's worth going through and recertifying a whole stack of apps. In fact, I've seen nothing compelling in Drizzle at all. "Hey, we ripped out a bunch of features and we're not Oracle!" Great. I'm trying to get real work done over here. The protest march is the next street over.
Drizzle? Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how about OpenSQL?
Why does Snoop Dogg carry an umbrella? (Score:3)
Fo' drizzle.
Oracle, are you paying attention? (Score:2)
A large part of the Internet Technology sector thinks your company is poison. I know, I know... you don't care unless they are shareholders dumping their shares en mass.
Re: (Score:2)
So I've spent years building my application on top of MySQL. And MySQL has done its job just fine...before Oracle and since.
Now comes along a fork, a new database, that solves *what* problem for me?
I'm looking for an effective DBMS (which I have in MySQL), not a company (or CEO) to love.
Are *you* paying attention? To *what*?
Re: (Score:2)
It solves nothing for you right now, until Oracle decides to muck with things and change them around as they see fit, until you feel like the end result is less and less the MySQL you know and love and more the brain child of new management.
Oracle has been screwing with all sorts of products that Sun managed since the acquisition. This is entirely precautionary. No one is telling you to make the switch. It's just there if you eventually have a need for it.
LADP? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Linux Drizzle Apache PHP, surely?
LDAP...
Wait a minute!! DOH!
2nd fork then? (Score:2)
Wasn't MariaDB [mariadb.org] enough?
Re: (Score:3)
They are not quite the same. Drizzle seems to be striving for minimalism, while MariaDB is trying to follow the pre-Oracle development path. Also, MariaDB has the following albatross around its neck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Widenius [wikipedia.org]. His post-Oracle "Save MySQL" campaign was all kinds of annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Albatross shmalbatross. I'm using MariaDB for a 6TB production system and it works flawlessly.
MySQL (Score:2)
>I'm using MariaDB for a 6TB production system and it works flawlessly.
Good to hear that, one heard rumors of MySQL eating data years back, though you can't be sure if that was due to operator error, but the old MySQL attitude of "who needs atomicity" probably didn't help.
Would you care to share any pointers? I'm sure you're using a 64-bit OS. RHEL or Ubuntu/Debian?
And what about replication? For high availability/scaling or backups? Does mysqldump give you a consistent dump? (I.e, if the dump takes 15 m
Way to show commitment! (Score:2)
A "drizzle" is a half-assed rain. Is Drizzle a database for those aren't really sure they want one?
NO FAKERS (Score:1)
WTF is up with open source names (Score:1)
I for one do not even try to explain to average people what open source software is, I cant get one sentence in before someone starts cracking jokes
Drizzle ... really? you want this to be the year of the * desktop? fine make it so I dont have to spend time explaining what lame drizzle is and how it is different from a gimp gnome!
LAME
GIMP
GNOME
etc
Re: (Score:2)
I have been wondering this for a long time. A lot of open source software names make no sense and even seem to downright downplay their usefulness before you even see them.
The biggest example is GIMP. What is the first thing you think of when you see the word GIMP? Limp. Cripple... You're telling the general public that the software is weak and quite possibly substandard. It might not be true, but first impressions mean a lot, and these silly names don't instill a lot of confidence.
Drizzle is a strange name
Drizzle creates mud (Score:3)
What a waste of /. commenting. I look through the top 50 and the obsession with the fucking name is amazing. How about the fact they don't support stored procedures or triggers.
Fundamentally, stored procedures usually are not the correct architectural decision for applications that need to scale.
WTF? Stored Procs are the basis for enterprise development with a DB backend. It is the whole point of scalability. Hard coding commands is horrible for anything but small apps. I am also not a fan of Oracle, but until a better alternative is presented I will stick with MySql because it is free, and can scale much better then these guys. Sorry Drizzle, its too muddy for my tastes.
Right (Score:2)
giving companies a viable alternative to Oracle-owned MySQL
How about a real alternative, like PostgreSQL?
What Snoop Dogg carries an umbrella for? (Score:2)
"Fo' drizzle"
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
If you want a real open source database, with a real commitment to not being evil, check out PostGres [postgresql.org]. I've preferred it over MySql for a really long time, for technical as well as political reasons.
MySql might have had better marketing, but for most purposes it was never the best open source database.
Re: (Score:1)
If you want a real open source database, with a real commitment to not being evil, check out PostGres [postgresql.org]. I've preferred it over MySql for a really long time, for technical as well as political reasons.
MySql might have had better marketing, but for most purposes it was never the best open source database.
Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?
Specifically - what's the clustering support like? Can you do hotbackup without LVM hacks? etc. I'd love to use Postgres, but need confidence that it's not got a massive deficiency somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many ways to do postgres clustering, what exactly do you want to achieve. Do you want to just spread out queries or do you want to do failover?
You can do hotbackups by running pg_dump while using the db, but you probably would be better served by just replicating to another machine.
We use Postgres for our main product and it seems to be ok at keeping food on my plate.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's just an interesting comparison between them all, but you can see Postgres supports basically everything MySQL does and then a whole lot more..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems [wikipedia.org]
Not sure how up to date that is though
Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who has dealt with both, I can say the reason postgresql isn't as popular is because its more involved in its setup. Mysql is simpler for new people. You install it, download phpmyadmin, login as root and then start creating databases and stuff. postgresql isn't as simple. Creating a new database is a bit more involved and when i first was confronted with it, I wondered why it was so complex.
I don't even know how to take advantage of more complex stuff in postgresql either.
This is coming from someone who is mildly experinced with mysql and set up a postgresql server not knowing anything.
Its like taking a Ubuntu person and sticking them on slackware/gentoo or something. Although its similar its still radically different.
Re: (Score:3)
Take a look at Postgres...it is MUCH more like Oracle in terms of a robust RDBMS. I've heard of projects taking pretty large Oracle installs...and converting over to Postgres with minimal pain.
The main reason MySQL is more popular is that it was smaller and easier to configure...but at the cost of robustness, and initially...data integrity. It was a short cut...much like {gag} MS Access proved often to be.
Post
Re: (Score:3)
Take a look at Postgres...it is MUCH more like Oracle in terms of a robust RDBMS. I've heard of projects taking pretty large Oracle installs...and converting over to Postgres with minimal pain.
The main reason MySQL is more popular is that it was smaller and easier to configure...but at the cost of robustness, and initially...data integrity. It was a short cut...much like {gag} MS Access proved often to be.
Postgres takes a bit more planning, and know how to install and use, but then again...so does something like Oracle.
You could probably compare:
MySql == Access
Postgres == Oracle
If you want to make some analogies.
Thank you for your replies.
I wrote the original comment - apologies, but I forgot to login (I don't login here often, I tend to lurk)
The reason I ask is because i've been suspicious of MySQL because of the dual licensing, and also because the (expensive) cluster version needs the indices to be in memory - which requires serious hardware for our setup as our data is 'long and thin'. However there is little experience of postgres here, so we spend the money.
Therefore i've never bothered with postgres, which i
Re: (Score:2)
MySql == Access
Ironically, even Access has full ACID transactions.
(yes, I know it's not quite what you meant)
Re: (Score:2)
MySql == Access
Ooh, that's just bitchy.
Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?
In my experience (since the last quarter of the 1990s), PostgreSQL never really trailed MySQL because there was anything wrong with it, it just fell in an awkward spot along the database spectrum. On one end of the spectrum (well, Berkeley DB was at the extreme end, just above flat files, but MySQL was next in line) MySQL fit the needs of the majority of data-driven webapps at the time.
A lot of web developers didn't need a proper database and often didn't recognize when they did need one, and couldn't design a decent schema in any case. MySQL was a good match for this skillset - it was easy for someone to set up and instance, throw together some tables and start coding. Any deficiencies were often just handled by throwing the logic into the code. MySQL was also pretty darned fast, which was important due to the hardware limitations of the time, and it could scale well enough for most needs. That got it a toehold and mindshare. Over the years as the demands of the web grew, Monty and friends made sure it stayed in that sweet spot. On the other end of the spectrum, if you *really* needed a proper database or massive scalability, you were usually doing something enterprise-ish, and that usually meant there was enough money available to pay for Oracle (or MS-SQL) and a Solaris machine. You had DBAs trained to manage the beast and design proper databases. Somewhere in between was PostgreSQL. Not as fast as MySQL (being ACID compliant was harder work), more difficult to setup, more demanding of hardware, not quite as powerful as Oracle, few people were trained to use it. Being free (of charge) didn't matter, because there was generally more to lose if things went wrong than the cost of the database, so Oracle was a safer bet. So, though it was more than good enough, PostgreSQL just didn't end up being as popular as MySQL. Didn't really matter, IMHO, because PostgreSQL did just fine and found a niche of it's own where it is doing quite well. Popularity isn't everything.
Re:MySQL went wrong direction long time ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's mainly historical.
Postgres used to be much harder to install and maintain, making it unpopular with causal people that just wanted a DB to run their website.\
Postgres also used to have much weaker clustering support, making it unpopular with people looking for a complete system
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of interest - i've always wondered why Postgres seems to trail in popularity to MySQL. I know the limitations of the latter having used it far too much, does anybody know where Postgres trails MySQL?
People will tell you a lot of things and some of them might actually be factors. The real reasons are pretty simple; marketing, platform preference, and user ignorance. Obviously there are other factors, but these are first and foremost.
Back when MySQL was just beginning to get any attention, a lot of people were actively looking at PostgreSQL. The problem is, PostgreSQL supported Win32 poorly. In fact, the Win32 port at the time, was actually a unsupported Cygwin port which came with lots of caveats and ba
Re: (Score:2)
That's some awesome trolling, that is.
Re: (Score:1)
Complete and utter bullshit.
You seemed like a moron after that first post, now you have proved it.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of interest, what's the problem with master/slave under postgres?
Re: (Score:2)
This coming from a poster who actually recommended using MS Access with a straight face.
Re: (Score:2)
This coming from a poster who actually recommended using MS Access with a straight face.
Says the person who might as well have written "there is no open source spreadsheet anywhere near as good as Microsoft Escel" in his sig...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if that's what you read, that says more about you than me.
I really miss ExpressCalc...
Re: (Score:2)
Master and slaves db setup is much better
Has never been true. Though IIRC, MySQL does support multi-master which PostgreSQL does not.
and easier with MySQL.
Used to be true but is no longer the case.
That's why Postgres isn't ready for entreprise databases.
And yet its commonly used in the enterprise side by side with Oracle. PostgreSQL commonly competes with Oracle. Hell, in many cases, it actually replaces Oracle.
If you're small to medium size business you basically have to use MySQL
Only if you have absolutely no clue what the hell you're talking about.
Postgres is nice, but it's for hobbyist mostly.
Reallying laying on the troll thick...
It just doesn't scale.
Except for the common cases where it performs better than MySQL and Oracle.
Desperate for attention much?
Re: (Score:2)
Can we centralize the "alternatives to MySQL" thread here? My vote's for Firebird [firebirdsql.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Access is a joke, even compared to MySQL.
I highly suggest you look into Postgresql.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot seems to be working ok. For a website MySql is an ok choice so long as you can live with its shortcomings.
If slashdot was on Access only one of us could use it at a time. Access is not a real db. Access competes with sqllite, not with anything anyone should be using for a production website.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot seems to be working ok
You do realize Slashdot has fairly frequently unplanned outages? I've also had maybe a little more than a half dozen messages lots by Slashdot over the years, and I'm just one user. How many thousands or tens of thousands of posts have been lost over the years?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if its a web site or not. The real question is, is your data important to you? If the answer is yes, MySQL should fall to the bottom of your list of choices.
Access competes with sqllite
I keep reading people saying that but Access is actually far, fa
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot seems to be working ok
You do realize Slashdot has fairly frequently unplanned outages? I've also had maybe a little more than a half dozen messages lots by Slashdot over the years, and I'm just one user. How many thousands or tens of thousands of posts have been lost over the years?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if its a web site or not. The real question is, is your data important to you? If the answer is yes, MySQL should fall to the bottom of your list of choices.
Uhh. When exactly have these fairly frequent unplanned outages happened? I don't remember having seen slashdot have any outages except when they were updating the database because the comment table index hit the upper limit. There wasn't even an outage when it got hacked (not cracked, the guy told the developers how he did it) and I had been lurking slashdot for years before I created this account. My UID would be near yours if not lower GooberToo, had I created an account when I started lurking.
Re: (Score:2)
Still nothing compared to the problems they would have running a website on Access. Postgresql should of course be what they switch to.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally I would support open source projects, but it's time to move on from MySQL. The project took wrong direction many years ago. If you go with Oracle, go with the old enterprise database solutions. If you don't exactly care about the license, go with Microsoft Access. They both are way better than MySQL and dealing with its problems.
What on earth are you talking about?
MySQL, Oracle, and Microsoft Access all target completely different markets. Access and MySQL are not even the same kind of software.
Re: (Score:3)
Please dear merciful God, don't ever use the words Microsoft Access and Database in the same sentence!!!
The terms are mutually exclusive...
Geez...I wish Access had never been created, and wish it would be banned.
The messes I've had to clean up due to it and its misuse.....*sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Access most certainly is a database - it organizes data for consistency and efficient operations. It's a single-user DB, and it's designed for relatively small (hundreds of megabytes at most) amounts - and yes, it is unfortunately abused way beyond its design constraints; but it is a database.
In fact, it's even a relational one. It has strict schema and actually enforces it (unlike MySQL ISAM, which thinks that "FOREIGN KEY" is some kind of fancy comment). It has proper transactions with isolation levels. I
Re: (Score:2)
You mean they actually fixed it?
I would not rate MSAccess as being a competitor to SQLite. It's not nearly as good. (Well, it wasn't around a decade ago...but at the time it was getting worse with each iteration.) It's sole advantage, if it is an advantage, is that it comes bundled with a programming environment. Unfortunately, they were in the habit of breaking things with every minor release. Or sometimes just because. (My general practice in debugging was to save a text copy of the program, and if
Re: (Score:1)
I'd use Access but I'm still trying to figure out Frontpage.
Re: (Score:2)
Access? Why?
Never pick Access as a multi-user db. At least pick SQL Sever Express if you insist on MS.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's cute - you thought that they did it on purpose, trying to help the user.
Re: (Score:2)