Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Databases Open Source Oracle Sun Microsystems

Is MySQL Slowly Turning Closed Source? 336

Posted by timothy
from the seems-like-a-reasonable-suspicion dept.
mpol writes "Sergei from MariaDB speculated on some changes within MySQL 5.5.27. It seems new testcases aren't included with MySQL any more, which leaves developers depending on it in the cold. 'Does this mean that test cases are no longer open source? Oracle did not reply to my question. But indeed, there is evidence that this guess is true. For example, this commit mail shows that new test cases, indeed, go in this "internal" directory, which is not included in the MySQL source distribution.' On a similar note, updates for the version history on Launchpad are not being updated anymore. What is Oracle's plan here? And is alienating the developer community just not seen as a problem at Oracle?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is MySQL Slowly Turning Closed Source?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:31AM (#41033703)

    And is alienating the developer community just not seen as a problem at Oracle?

    Pretty much exactly this.

    • by kimvette (919543) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:35AM (#41033725) Homepage Journal

      Anyone asking this question has obviously never dealt with Oracle.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:55AM (#41033821)

        Indeed. This has been obvious for some time (InnoDB) which is why many needing similar functionality have moved on to PostgreSQL. Of course there so many options these days, and as usual the choice depends on the application.

        Oracle: ZFS, MySQL, VirtualBox, Java...

        And quite frankly ZFS and Java do not integrate well with many Linux distributions. Avoid oracle or face a never ending string of hidden costs.

        I know many X-Sun employees, Oracle is not earning a good reputation with the science and engineering folks. Once their brand dries up like Cisco's is, it will be all down hill from there.

        • by erroneus (253617) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:55AM (#41034221) Homepage

          That's to be expected. The people at Oracle are selling to MBA/Executives who believe the fact that they have heard the brand name and see it everywhere they go means something. It doesn't matter that it's over-priced or that their sales model is not presentative of what they actually deliver, the MBAs see value in expensive things and believe it is worth it. Meanwhile, MySQL had been gaining market share and living in areas where Oracle wants to live. So they buy the product thinking they are buying the real estate it sits on. They know at some level they aren't buying the territory but they think that by boiling the frog, they can somehow get more out of it.

          While Postgres is probably the obvious choice to migrtate into, especially for new projects, I still kind of want to have an M in my LAMP. Stupid, I know, but it's true. I don't want LAPP... bad childhood memories.

          Oracle demonstrated what dumbasses they are with OpenOffice. The community proved there is less value in a name than Oracle want to believe.

          So go ahead, Oracle... buy more names and see what it gets you. In the end we still see everything associated with you as an extension of you and we don't actually LIKE you because of who you are, not what your name is. You'd think with a name like Oracle they would be more insightful than they are.

        • by devent (1627873)

          How is Java not integrating well with Linux? Java is free like in libre, the reference implementation is under the GPLv2: OpenJDK.
          Oracle is now shipping JavaFX with OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/openjfx/ [java.net]

          • by forgot_my_nick (1138413) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @04:13AM (#41034469)

            >Java is free like in libre, the reference implementation is under the GPLv2: OpenJDK

            Java is NOT free as in Libre. While OpenJDK is the "reference implementation" (which in Oracles terminology means "Blame the Apache Foundation") it does not and will never include the closed source goodies in Oracle Java.

            In addition, Linux distros are no longer allowed to redistribute Oracle Java due to some bizarre Ellinsionian fiat. (probably they want you to use Snoracle Linux). So If you still need Oracle Java for whatever reason, you have to install it yourself. However despite Larry's best efforts, the Community (thanks!) has come through with scripts and native packages to install recent Oracle Java on any Linux distro you can think of.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:59AM (#41033833)

      Exactly. Anybody asking this question is obviously not aware of the OpenOffice saga.

    • by lindi (634828) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @03:20AM (#41034303)

      MySQL documentation was not open source when Sun was in charge either so doing the same with testcases is not very surprising (debian bug 335219).

      • by Raenex (947668)

        That Debian bug is from 2005, and Sun bought MySQL in 2008, so you'll have to blame the original MySQL owner for that, which just so happens is the person behind MariaDB.

    • Or in other words: never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

    • by RichardJenkins (1362463) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @04:34AM (#41034537)

      Clearly they were so overwhelmed by their success with OpenOffice they want to replicate it with MySQL.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:37AM (#41033739)

    "Is MySQL Slowly Turning TheirSQL?"

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      For those that may not know. The lead developer's son's first name is My. Maria (from MariaDB fame) being a daughter's name.

      So I think you have to go with LarrySQL.

      • by TeknoHog (164938)

        For those that may not know. The lead developer's son's first name is My. Maria (from MariaDB fame) being a daughter's name.

        Actually, My is a female name. It was coined by Tove Jansson for a character in her Moomin series. The full name of the character is Little My, and it refers to the lowercase Greek letter mu, which in Scandinavian languages is spelled "my".

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_My [wikipedia.org]

  • Just use Postgresql (Score:5, Informative)

    by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:50AM (#41033785)

    Postgresql is also a Free Software multi-platform database. It was designed properly (unlike MySQL, Postgresqlwas designed with transactions in mind), has excellent internationalization support (proper 3 and 4 byte UTF, unlike MS SQL-Server with its UCS-2 or blob unicode [unless the very latest version has fixed this]).

    Personally I prefer Postgresql to MySQL. While Postgresql looks more 'plain vanilla' I actually find it more straightforward to get easy things done (that is, pgadminIII doesn't look so flashy but I found it is much easier to get connected and get going than mysqlworkbench). YMMV of course, but if you are concerned about corporate control and the future of MySQL taking a look at Postgresql won't harm you - it is a nice(r) place to land if you have to.

    • by nmb3000 (741169)

      mysqlworkbench

      That's because MySQL Workbench is an abortion that never should have been released. It's also why a large majority of users and admins still use the last release of Query Browser and Server Administrator to interact with MySQL servers, even if the new features aren't supported.

      I tried using Workbench for a full day of SQL dev work before throwing in the towel. I've read others say that "you get used to it", but I'd also probably get used to losing 2 fingers from each hand -- it doesn't mean I want to. It

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Sesostris III (730910)
      For me, the one advantage MySQL (and MariaDB, and even Apache Derby!) have over PostgreSQL is that there are versions that can be run stand-alone "out of the box" as a non-root user. PostgreSQL (AFAIK) needs to be installed, and needs to be installed as root (and you need to create a postgres user, etc.).

      OK for production, you need to install things properly (as root), but for development / learning / tinkering the ability to run various instances stand-alone is a huge plus.

      (Of course, if there is the
      • by PhrstBrn (751463) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:01AM (#41034067)

        Of course, if there is the facility to run PostgeSQL out-of-the-box and stand-alone, please feel free to correct me!

        Sure, I can do that for you. Your assumption is wrong.

        • Of course, if there is the facility to run PostgeSQL out-of-the-box and stand-alone, please feel free to correct me!

          Sure, I can do that for you. Your assumption is wrong.

          I'm sure my assumption is wrong, but until you tell me how to do it, I'm not going to believe you.

          For MySQL (and MariaDB) all I need to do is download the .tar.gz Linux generic package, unpack it locally, run 'mysql/scripts/mysql_install_db' and then run 'mysql/bin/mysqld_safe'. All done as me (not root).

          For PostgreSQL the only instructions I could find for installing PostgreSQL myself is to build from source (OK with --prefix=$HOME/...) and you still need to create the postgres user (which means it

          • by bmo (77928) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @05:12AM (#41034699)

            For PostgreSQL the only instructions I could find for installing PostgreSQL myself is to build from source

            You don't have access to precompiled postgresql binaries in your repositories? Why? Why are you not using a Linux distro with package management? Why are you not using a Linux distribution that supports postgresql like Ubuntu, Redhat, SuSE, etc?

            FFS, even Pardus supports postgresql.

            And if you're using Windows, Postgresql has a one-click Windows installer.

            I call shenanigans.

            --
            BMO

            • by HJED (1304957)
              Which distributions are you using which let you install from the repositories without being root, because the ones you listed require you to be root? The GP wants to install as his own user without root privileges and is saying there is no way to do that.
              • by smpoole7 (1467717)

                > Which distributions are you using which let you install from the repositories without being root

                I wouldn't have a distro that didn't require installation as root. :)

                Any decent distro will not only install Postgres from repository for you, it will set up the Postgres(ql) user and group. Yes, it will be installed and available to all users on the system, but, while the original poster might personally have a concern about this, for 99% of us, it's a non-issue.

                If the GP is concerned about people being abl

                • If the GP is concerned about people being able to download and "tinker," that's not a mainstream concern

                  As the 'GP' concerned, I agree with you. I also agree that I could install from my distributions repository (assuming it is up-to-date. My repository - LMDE - is based on Debian Testing) or use the .deb from PostgreSQL direct. I agree I could even install it in a virtualised environment.

                  However, the the comparison originally was against MySQL. Unlike PostgreSQL, with MySQL all you need to do is download a generic .tar.gz and unpack.

                  (As to the postres user, I may be wrong about needing that if using a

          • by TheSunborn (68004)

            Where did you look? There is a binary installer available for Linux, Windows and MacOSX at http://www.enterprisedb.com/products-services-training/pgdownload [enterprisedb.com]

      • by innocent_white_lamb (151825) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:49AM (#41034209)

        Perhaps you should be looking at Sqlite [sqlite.org], which is a "a self-contained, serverless, zero-configuration, transactional SQL database engine" (as it says on their webpage).
         
        You can run it interactively (or through a bash script or something) with the sqlite3 command line shell, or (most efficiently) hook it into your own programs and use it to do all kinds of clever SQL stuff directly within your program.
         
        Oh yeah, it's also explicitly public domain, so you can use it for any purpose and in any application whatsoever.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          ...and it's built into python:

          import sqlite3 ...it's just that simple.

        • I've played around with Sqlite in the past. I'm not sure I'd want it as a drop-in replacement for either MySQL or PostgreSQL. I must admit, as a Java developer I'm more likely to use Apache Derby, which can be used embedded or client/server.
          • by dkf (304284)

            I've played around with Sqlite in the past. I'm not sure I'd want it as a drop-in replacement for either MySQL or PostgreSQL. I must admit, as a Java developer I'm more likely to use Apache Derby, which can be used embedded or client/server.

            I use both SQLite and Derby in projects of mine (not in the same project!) and it is my experience that SQLite is a lot higher quality than Derby. It copes far better with abuse such as killing the process or attempting to access the DB from multiple processes, and it has far higher limits on column sizes. On the other hand, Derby is pure Java so it's easier to embed in a redistributable package, whereas SQLite uses a native JDBC "driver" (actually the DB engine itself).

            The other one to consider is HSQLDB,

      • by he-sk (103163) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @05:02AM (#41034667)

        There are one-click installers available for Windows [postgresql.org] and OS X [postgresql.org]. On Linux, you would obviously the package management version.

        You also don't have to run PostgreSQL as root at all. I develop on OS X and typically run an installation from my home directory. (I also compile my own version, but you don't have to do that.)

      • by mlwmohawk (801821) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @06:37AM (#41034983)

        Not only are you wrong, you are really really wrong here.

        Not only can you run PostgreSQL "out of the box" but you can run multiple instances of it with their own directory. You *never* run postgresql as root as it is not allowed.

        Install or put postgresql in your path, it is really is this simple:

        initdb -D /your/path/to/database
        pg_ctl -D /home/markw/pgtest/data -l logfile start
        createdb mydatabase
        psql mydatabase

        Now, you can configure your version of postgresql to be on a different port than others, you can run it as any non-privileged user. You can configure it to be occupy a pretty small resource footprint or configure it to be huge. You can put a database on almost any file system.

        Anyone who says MySQL is easier is smoking crack.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by AtlantaSteve (965777)

        For me, the one advantage MySQL (and MariaDB, and even Apache Derby!) have over PostgreSQL is that there are versions that can be run stand-alone "out of the box" as a non-root user. PostgreSQL (AFAIK) needs to be installed, and needs to be installed as root (and you need to create a postgres user, etc.).

        There is a reason why no one bothers to make an XAMPP-style "portable" version of PostgrSQL, as they have with MySQL. The reason is that this is dead-simple to accomplish even with the out-of-the-box binaries available on the PostgreSQL site.

        On the PostgreSQL download page [postgresql.org], you would download the "zip archive of the binaries", rather than the one-click installer. Unzip the archive's contents wherever you like (including on a USB thumb drive), and then refer to this 3-paragraph PostgreSQL article [postgresonline.com]. It tell

      • I maintain a utility named peg [github.com] that makes it straightforward to install a local copy of PostgreSQL in your home directory. It's aimed at developers who want a local copy they can tinker with as a non-root user. It even includes shell aliases for starting and stopping the server. If you have all the necessary development tools to compile PostgreSQL, you can have a working install in four lines of typing:

        mkdir -p pgwork
        peg init test
        . peg build
        psql

        I haven't made things like building from one of the stable r

    • by slack_justyb (862874) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:12AM (#41034109)
      Additionally, postgresql implements more of SQL99 than most others out there.

      "Real" BOOLEAN support, CTE using WITH (which MySQL is actually the only real enterprise DB that doesn't offer this), support for FETCH cursors, HOLD cursors, one of the best implementations of date math (maybe only DB2 does this better), blows MySQL out of the water hands down on window functions (seriously MySQL, no SQL OVER support? REALLY?!), also (I know this may seem trivial) but MySQL doesn't even implement SQL OVERLAY.

      In many ways postgresql brings a LOT of modern SQL to the table that it makes MySQL seem hokey, if not downright convoluted. I cannot speak for Oracle's 11g, but I've found postgresql just as capable at doing whatever it is I need to get done as I can in DB2, MS-SQL is just it's own beast altogether. However, MySQL lacks so much functionality that you constantly have to revert to procedures to get anything done.

      Now I will say to MySQL's credit, that it is one of the easiest DBs to admin for and they support a good subset of SQL2003, but it's not enough, it leaves a lot to want for. I know a lot of people have invested a lot into MySQL, but the lack of a lot of modern functions that a lot of other DBs enjoy out of the box, makes using MySQL a chore to write for. Thank goodness it's easy to scale and admin, because if it didn't have that going for it, then we'd have LAPP stacks. However, this is just another pot shot for MySQL. Slowly closing source code, no test scripts, dodgy support for some of the most useful (IMHO) features of standard SQL. I don't want to diss anyone who works on the project, they have done a mighty nice job, but there are more and more negatives building up, that the scales are starting to tip in opposition to MySQL. No disrespect, but we're at that point that people on the fence are really going to look hard at the competition.

      Finally, and totally off topic. IBM YOU SUCK! Seriously, you can't make a freaking function to create a CSV list from a set of rows?! I have to cast the result set to XML and then work backwards from there? Everyone else has one! I wouldn't curse you if I wasn't forced to use your product. There, glad I got to air that out.
      • by erroneus (253617)

        MySQL = Gecko
        PostgreSQL = Webkit

        Got it. But there is more to it than technically correct implementation and feature sets.

        As far as IBM goes, "CSV isn't *professional* so we don't do it!" I just love it when people think something isn't professional or "enterprise" enough. As if they have some clue about who, where and how these things are being used... largely by real professionals.

    • by suy (1908306) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @03:02AM (#41034243) Homepage

      I don't have the technical skills to judge the merits of MySQL vs PostgreSQL, but I can't tell you one thing: MySQL is like PHP, it might have lots of critics, but is the more widely used, supported, and developed database/programming language for web applications. All popular CMSs are written in PHP (Drupal, Joomla, MediaWiki, WordPress...), and many of them have MySQL first in the list. WordPress is almost MySQL specific. They have a PostgreSQL plugin, but works rewriting queries on the fly, and they recognize is expected to be slower, and not work for all plugins [wordpress.org].

      I've always wanted to have the excuse to try a different programming language/framework for web applications, and even a different database server, but I never had the excuse because you always feel second class if you go with them. I use my own hosting, but for cheap virtual hosts PHP and MySQL is almost a de facto standard. And if you pick some web application almost always MySQL is the best or only choice.

      I know some day I'll be proved wrong, and this comment will be outdated, but I don't feel this is the time yet. And let me insist, I'm not claiming is due to technical merits (nor denying it), but I feel this is the way it is.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @06:17AM (#41034927)
        You are very right. MySQL is like PHP. That's why people shouldn't use both.

        Avoid stuff where you can have bugs like this:
        http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=31001
        http://pwnhome.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/php-crypt-bug/
        http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/

        And watch the MySQL jokers try to fix this:
        http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=65111
        And somehow cause this:
        http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=65745

        I'm a crap programmer, but I prefer to use libraries, tools and languages that are less crap than my stuff. That way at least I spend more time dealing with my own incompetence than someone else's.
      • by mlwmohawk (801821)

        I don't have the technical skills to judge the merits of MySQL vs PostgreSQL

        Then why would you feel qualified to make a decision about which database to use? This is something I just do not understand. It happens in this industry ALL THE F&^%KING TIME. People admitting that the don't have the skills to make a proper evaluation decide to do it anyway. This is why software and websites suck.I'm an engineer. I am concerned about the decisions I make. If I need to choose a technology, and I have the time, I dive in deep and learn about it. If I don't have the time, I find a couple

    • by itsdapead (734413) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @04:56AM (#41034639)

      Personally I prefer Postgresql to MySQL. While Postgresql looks more 'plain vanilla' I actually find it more straightforward to get easy things done

      I've used both and am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately, they are sufficiently different to make migrating existing projects a pain. Also, MySQL is commonly available in commercial web-hosting services, which makes it the safest bet for data-driven websites. I'd also agree that PostgreSQL isn't quite as falling-off-a-log simple to get started with as MySQL (which is the usual consequence of a more sophisticated system),

      It used to be 'horses for courses': The MySQL of a few versions ago really hit the sweet spot for website backends, in which "reads" are far more common than "writes", and most updates simply consisted of adding a new record to a table. In that case, you can live without transactions, referential integrity checking, functions etc. and enjoy the resulting performance. That's what started the "myth" that MySQL was faster than PostgreSQL (of course it was - it was doing less!).

      The later versions of MySQL seem like putting traction control and power steering on a bicycle. Perhaps someone should (or maybe has) fork "classic" MySQL as the ideal tool for data-driven websites, and leave the grown-up stuff to PostgreSQL? Or, maybe sqlite is the way to go for that.

    • by BeanThere (28381)

      We deliver software solutions that work with various major DBMS's, and by our preference is PostgreSQL.

      In fact, for most situations we encounter, we would prefer PostgreSQL to Oracle even if Oracle was free.

  • IMHO... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZeroPly (881915) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:50AM (#41033787)
    Look, by no means FORK! am I a SQL expert, but I still feel FORK! compelled to express my FORK! opinon here. Face it folks, Oracle FORK! is evil. That said, if there is some way FORK! to create a parallel version, a version FORK! not intended to pay for a yacht, I would FORK! be all for it.
    • Re:IMHO... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @01:02AM (#41033845)

      You mean, like MariaDB [mariadb.org], as mentioned in the summary (hint: 3rd word) ?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @03:07AM (#41034263)

        Shit, I didn't know that! I saw MariaDB and I didn't think to google to find out who or what that is supposed to be.

        I guess I'm spoiled by proper editing and writing where it should have been phrased as such:

        "Sergei from MariaDB, a MySQL Fork, speculated on some changes within MySQL 5.5.27."

        But never mind, we should all google and research everything posted here because, not only do most folks talk out of their asses, but by missing some detail like that gives some pedant a chance to post something to make himself feel superior for knowing some esoteric and minor piece of information.

        • Anonymous, you are actually right. Many times over have I seen /. news which casually referred to stuff without mentioning WHAT the stuff was. Typical technical staff attitude, expecting that the whole world would simply know.
          This is a general attitude, sadly. Years ago, when I was doing helpdesk work, the least intelligible tickets came from technical staff: "I can't sudo brwnc-u using PLS on TRM, works if I pscp. Fix needed." or "i'm an ASM in PRTC and need a PGP key to FRM ASAP". Seriously?
          And then they

    • Re:IMHO... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Darinbob (1142669) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @01:49AM (#41034031)

      SPOON!

    • That said, if there is some way to create a parallel version, a version not intended to pay for a yacht, I would be all for it.

      Forking, perhaps?

  • Obviously (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nethemas the Great (909900) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:51AM (#41033795)
    Oracle has been doing nothing more than gobbling competitors the whole time. Just because the haven't done it overnight doesn't mean that's not what they're doing.
  • MariaDB (Score:5, Insightful)

    by euxneks (516538) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @12:59AM (#41033831)
    MariaDB is a drop in replacement for MySQL which was forked a while ago: http://mariadb.org/ [mariadb.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Forks are only drop in replacements for so long. By their very nature they are divergent. Unless they're shepherded by organizations such as the Apache foundation they're also very difficult for corporations to trust and thus adopt.
    • Can't wait for another fork called EmanuelleDB.
      Seriously, WHO names these DBs?

  • MySQL sweet spot (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Can someone please explain the sweet spot in which MySQL is a better option than both SQLite and PostgreSQL?
    It seems to me that SQLite is a much better option on the very low end, and by the time MySQL would be a better choice, PostgreSQL is an even better choice.

    • by hobarrera (2008506) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:01AM (#41034069) Homepage

      MySQL is lighter than PostgreSQL.
      SQLite is an embeded database; it's really a different sort of tool altogether.

      • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @03:08AM (#41034267) Homepage Journal

        SQLite is an embeded database; it's really a different sort of tool altogether.

        But you don't have to use it embedded. The command line tool is basic but functional, and if you want, say, a web interface to query a SQLite back end, you can do that too. For most of the MySQL use cases, there's really not much difference.

        I worked as a MySQL DBA for years, and I was quite vocal in its defense. Eventually I realized that most of the criticisms of it were entirely reasonable (even if the tone in which they were expressed often wasn't) and that OP is right: use SQLite for stuff that's, well, light, and Postgres for anything that's heavier-duty. The only arguments for MySQL these days are its ubiquity and extensive documentation, and the way Oracle's behaving I don't expect either of those will apply much longer.

        • sqlite do not work really well for concurent access, due to locking.

        • MySQL supports concurrency, doing what you propose, you can handle one request at a time. There's clearly a difference. I don't expect many applications to scale if you can only write with one thread at a time.

          Most of the times, MySQL sits behind some application, the command line too can't replace that scenario.

      • by Bogtha (906264)

        MySQL is lighter than PostgreSQL.

        Define "lighter". Memory use? CPU use? Disk use? Latency? These sorts of things are highly dependent upon configuration in both MySQL and PostgreSQL. How are you measuring "lighter", and is this assuming default configuration?

    • Everything useful is written against MySQL specifically, with Postgres support an afterthought. This sucks, yes.

      • by itsdapead (734413)

        Everything useful is written against MySQL specifically, with Postgres support an afterthought. This sucks, yes.

        Well, that's because not everybody has the luxury of choosing which database is supported by their web hosting service and MySQL is by far the most common. So your wonderful blogging application really needs to target MySQL if it's going to be widely used.

        Plus, "Linux, Apache, MySQL, (PHP|Perl|Python)" = LAMP. Switching to LASP or LAPP just wouldn't give you such a good acronym. Why do you think server-side Ruby, HaXE, nodeJS etc. have never dethroned scripting languages starting with "P"? ...and server-s

    • by itsdapead (734413)

      C.f. PostgreSQL: Old-school MySQL with MyISAM tables was perfect for data-driven websites, where most accesses are 'read only' and any updates tend to be straightforward 'add new record' operations. If you don't do complicated update queries then you can live without transactions, referential integrity and all that jazz, and avoid a lot of the overhead that you'd get with PostgreSQL. That advantage mostly disappears if you start using newer MySQL features.

      On the other hand, unlike SQLite, MySQL is still

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @01:33AM (#41033973)

    Larry Ellison believes in one thing: making money.

    If publishing test cases doesn't make money for Oracle and they're not required to do it by law (license, etc) then they won't do it.

    Stop pretending Oracle cares about anything other than money and you'll have a much more accurate and healthy view of the beast.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:30AM (#41034153)

    if they want to use open source database. Try Firebird SQL [firebirdsql.org] if you want to go light (lighter than mysql in most cases I've seen), or go with the big boys with PostgreSQL [postgresql.org].

  • by popo (107611) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @02:38AM (#41034179) Homepage

    I'm not sure I share the same fear that Oracle will close-source MySQL. It's OpenSource, which means by definition that with every invisible line in the sand that they cross, more forks will appear.

    Unless the version-enhancements that Oracle is adding are so great (um.. they're not) there's very little they can do to co-opt the technology without seeing it slip through their fingers.

  • I've downloaded it as recently as 2 months back, and found it gone yesterday. The download page at http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/connector/mxj/ [mysql.com] is empty and mxj connector is no longer listed under connectors - http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/connector/ [mysql.com]. SQLite aside, MXJ [mysql.com] was the easiest way to embed a MySQL database in your (Java) package.
  • by etangreal (1050192) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @03:46AM (#41034375) Homepage
    What if Oracle is planning to slowly slowly kill off/degrade MySQL? By with-holding the test cases / not putting in effort into new features/development. If opensource contributors cant test properly - they would create a buggy, unstable/inferior product in the future. According to what I know - Oracle is in the database business, MySQL is "competing" database of sorts... Why would oracle want to keep it around? Its not in their interest, right?
  • by someones (2687911) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @04:21AM (#41034493)

    WHY is still anyone using mysql, when there is Postgresql?

  • by jonwil (467024) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @04:27AM (#41034517)

    Forking worked for Libreoffice, I dont see why it couldn't work for MySQL...

  • by allo (1728082) on Saturday August 18, 2012 @05:14AM (#41034709)

    in the title of a story.

    would prevent a lot of bad written summaries.

  • PerconaDB is a drop in replacement for MySQL. If you don't know who Percona are, you're missing out on some magic - these guys are MySQL tuning and recovery experts. I'd trust this over MariaDB - never even heard of MariaDB until I saw this article. http://www.percona.com/software/percona-server/downloads/ [percona.com]

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. -- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

Working...