Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

mSQL: It's Baaaccckkkkk 65

Posted by Hemos from the i-want-some-of-what-they-are-smoking dept.
Leomania writes "In this press release on the mSQL (aka Mini SQL) website, it appears that mSQL is once again under development. A new release is slated for February 15th, and support will be available starting February 1st."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

mSQL: It's Baaaccckkkkk More

mSQL: It's Baaaccckkkkk

Comments Filter:
  • I can't understand using mSQL, I used it at first, but had to move to MySQL because of the limits in the mSQL langauge. Why benefit is there going to mSQL instead of MySQL or similar, it's not like memory and HDD space is really and issue and I am not sure if mSQL is that much smaller.
  • Yeah, take away the competition so we don't have any choices. There are enough text editors, quit developing them because everybody uses the same one anyway, right? Wrong.

    Choice is good, and the competition between the different choices makes each contender better. I could go on about how much I disagree with your idea, but this hangover is killing me.
  • No, there is PostgreSQL at the high end, MySQL at the medium-low end, and sleepycat at the really-low-end.
  • Since MySQL will be getting (someday) transactions it'll be a rather robust database someday.

    why not use postgresql now? it's had transactions for a couple years.

    use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
  • But you can't freely use it for hardly anything. Even if you want to use the definition of free software simply not costing anything you must be able to use it for free not just get the source for free.
  • Linux kernel developers are adding kernel-space performance boosts to compete against IIS' (supposed?) kernel-space file redirector.

  • MySQL does a great job of doing things; yeah, it doesn't have transactions or foreign keys and the like to keep an incredible efficiency rate, but PostrgreSQL is another free alternative if you want to do this on the database end instead of in the program.

    I'm not sure why, even if they completely GPL'ed mSQL, the world needs another SQL? Is there any mental differentiation between the products currently out there?

    I think the problem here is simply mindshare and coming into a crowded SQL market where enterprise has already been adopting free alternatives to Oracle and the other extremely expensive SQL databases. Reinventing the wheel by introducing mSQL again seems futile at best, foolish at worse when they could be marketing their database expertise toward the fairly lucrative services industry for the enterprise sector.
    --

  • Jeez the mods are out in force. Can't we post brief replies to people who ask for more information? The post above this says "MySQL!" in terms of competition for mSQL. WTF is up with the mods on crack.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Pg is nice but you'll miss the nice client tools you get with IB.
    PG has some features that IB does not have like user defined operators! and loadable SP and trigger languages. It does not have domains but it does have user defined datatypes.

    The query optimizer is pretty nice (IB gets confused sometimes) and the import export facility is way better then IB.

    It does not run on windoes tho. It has it's annoyances too (no outer joins yet but coming soon) but all and all a very nice DB that is actually fun to work with.
  • "What does "open-source competition" have to do with it? Keep in mind msql is *not* OSS."

    ok, granted. sorry, i haven't looked at msql in a long while.

    but, don't you think this lends even more weight to my question? who's going to use msql, when there are better, more established open-source (or free software, take your pick) sql backends already?

    and my first post wasn't a troll, to whatever moron moderated it as one.
    --
  • Well, for a comment system like Slashdot, corruptibility is not a terrible concern. But for any enterprise-level solutions, missing data is very bad. I think that transactions are simply essential for anything that is legally responsible information.

    PG is damn good, and pretty quick besides. Good FK implementation with ON DELETE functionality built in. It has support for procedural language, but not quite as intuitive as Oracle's PL. My main gripe with it is the lack of a good context search. That's where Oracle really blows PG away, although there's no question that PG's physical DB structure is not as stable as Oracle's (if you can get it to run).

    -Scott Miller

  • Well not knowing much about mSQL, I would suppose that it was competitor to all the other database available. As to how good it is, I wouldn't know. Finally, even though I should know better than respond to a troll, Linux is currently second in the server market with 24% and rising. That constitutes competition.

  • Re:Competition is not good in Open Source (Score:3)

    by kyz ( 225372 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2001 @10:03AM (#503949) Homepage
    Well, in my opinion, the idea of competition neing good for software development id also outdated.

    Competition is nice, but the most important thing is not competition, but having a choice.

    Nothing would make me happier if, instead of halving a choice between half a dozen different poorly implemented solutions, there was just one excellent solution.

    But the problem isn't that there are half a dozen different solution in your example, it's that they're all poor. It's not always the case that multiplicity correlates with quality.

    The best open source projects have a monopoly, and suck all the development effort for that field - The Kernel and Apache for example.

    So, by your definition, nobody is working on BSD. The researchers who come up with new networking protocols traditionally prefer BSD. Do they not count? Do the BSD security nuts not count? The reason why there is a lot of effort in Linux and Apache is because they are very open-ended and have a wide scope for extensibility. Most of the developers are working on the extensible parts, not the core.

    Why do we need several different versions of SQL to be on the go? It would be far better if there were just one, and the quality of the product would improve also.

    That's the beauty of standards. There *is* only one SQL available. All the implementations of SQL have different redeeming factors. Do you need Oracle 8 just to power your weblog?
  • Accept that MySQL is be definition not a true database and that Oracle's Power outshines all the others. Period.
  • In *some* (apparently isolated) projects, mSQL is apparently a bit faster than MySQL.

    I've seen a project where that's the case. It involved a lot of simple SELECT statements.

    But still, why? MySQL and PostgreSQL are MUCH more full featured. And they're 100% open source.

    Hopefully they'll improve the msql mini-sql-monitor. It's by far the worst command line SQL monitor I've used!

    Of course since it's not GPL'd, they can't link it to GNU readline for command-history recall. Big problem there...
  • Like many intelligent posters have pointed out, while being lucrative for the developers, this will only serve to segment the market more. MySQL (and postgres) has become the standard and developing mSQL may have the unfortunate problem of confusing people. At least change the name...

    -Moondog
  • What does "open-source competition" have to do with it? Keep in mind msql is *not* OSS [opensource.org]. Just because you can get the source does not mean that it is open
  • M$ SQL Server doesn't fit, hasn't fit, and never will fit. That's the point.
  • Remember that Linus choice to create a Linux, even though Minix and FreeBSD already existed.

    Linus decided to create Linux because minix did not satisfy his needs. BSD for x86 (386BSD, not even speaking of FreeBSD) did not exist at that time. I am former user of 386BSD 0.1 and NetBSD up to 0.9. But when I discovered Linux, it was way ahead of NetBSD (speaking about kernels around 0.99.11 and SLS distribution): shared libraries, much better stability, and wider hardware support.


    -Yenya
    --

  • That's an acceptable argument, but I don't think that mSQL has an analogy like that in the DB market. In fact, I don't think that they'll be competing really at all.

    mSQL is for people who want really simple, really fast DB access. Not even mySQL can compete on that level (they've sacrificied some speed for features). So, if a person is informed on the advantages of the DB's, there shouldn't be too much hankering over whether their project is in need of mSQL or not.
  • The big question left unanswered by this press release is what the mSQL developers intend to do that will make them competitive again. There was a time when mSQL was the most cost effective SQL database on the market because MySQL didn't yet exist and postgresql was just postgress which didn't use SQL. So the competition was between mSQL and huge full blown databases like Oracle, Sybase, Informix, ... (none of which supported Linux yet) It was in this market that mSQL gained its following. For being the inexpensive underdog that had few features but also low overhead. But many things have changed since then MySQL has conquered the minimal feature but fast domain and together with postgressql the free^H^H^H^H open source databases now rule the small and medium database world. The big boys have moved in and ported to Linux and you can download most of them for free as development platforms but must pay to run them commercially. And all of these databases have had very active development over the last five years that have made this a very different market than it used to be.
    But what has mSQL done? Well, with 2.0 they added keys and became a sort of stable. They also created their own web scripting language (Lite/w3-sql) which came out before PHP became popular but since the early development of PHP it has looked like a relative but a younger brother at best. All this and they have always charged $200 per license. And the last release was Aug 1999.
    So this leaves me with the big question, what are they going to do to be competitive? I suppose they could be but I don't know what it would take. For starters they will need to become truely open source because there is no other way they could develop fast enough. Do they have plans that are new and revolutionary? Or do they just intend to clean up their code and expect all thier former users that have given up on them and left for greener pastures to return?
    I used mSQL 2.0 before I learned about MySQL and realized that it was faster (in almost everything), more stable, more feature rich, and free for web servers. Since then MySQL has improved a lot while mSQL has only had maintenance releases to the 2.0.x tree. They have fallen very much behind it will be interesting if they just pretend that they are on par or if they catch up. Good luck to them, they have a very uphill climb ahead.
  • Thanks for backing me up. I too wonder WTF is up with the moderators sometimes. Sure my post is brief but I'm happy mSQL is back. Competition is good because: Lets face it - each open source database (mSQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc) can only really be innovative in a couple areas without experiencing growth problems in the form of numerous bugs, etc. (I'm talking short term of course, long term each will adopt the others great features). So competition is good because we get different projects focusing on the same general area but doing things in different ways.

  • Lack of integrity constraints (like FKs) is a good example why both mSQL and MySQL blow chunks, compared to Interbase [borland.com]. The MySQL folks give their reasons [mysql.com] not support FKs, but IMHO they are a load of crap.

    In my 6 years of developing database applications (Oracle, Sybase, Interbase), lack of FKs is the #1 reason why databases contain unclean data. The MySQL approach of 'let the developer' worry about it is assinine - especially if you have multiple interfaces to insert / update data in your database (e.g., a web interface and a traditional client-server interface).

    The only Good Thing (tm) everyone on /. says about MySQL is that it is 'fast'. Interbase seems just as fast a MySQL on my Linux box. (I have never timed their query response times and I would appreciate any published comparisions to dissuade me.

    "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."

  • You are absolutely right about FK's, and that's why I switched to PostgreSQL. However, it is those same foreign keys that make inserts/updates very slow, because the check occurs each time. That's why MySQL is faster, yet more corruptible. Of course, I run a good Linux kernel, so MY server will NEVER crash. Yeah, right.
  • IMHO if you want to manage is just a small bunch of data and you DON'T depend on SQL or types the LDAP is not suited for you would get better performance from an LDAP server. Just my 2c
  • I do agree with you that there is not really enough mindshare out there for them in particular since they are not open. As to moderation it seems to go in odd cycles of strangeness.

  • Funny you shound say that, given that the only way you can get transactions in mysql is by using bdb (a.k.a. sleepycat's berkeley db) tables. When was the last time you looked at berkeley db? -- it's a lot more than a simple on-disk hash or btree. Take transactions for instance, libdb prvide's 'em, mysql just makes use of 'em.

    It's funny, one of the questions in sleepycat's FAQ is "does berkeley db support an sql interface?". Once TCX calls 3.23 stable, they can change this to "Yes!".

  • wahooO! (Score:1)

    by cymen ( 8178 )
    More competition is good!

  • Erk! (Score:1)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    msql's licence got so horrible, I think they probably quit cos nobody tolerated it.

    msql NEEDS to be free, or it won't survive. Anyone wanting speed -> mySQL. Completeness -> pgsql. Bugs -> Btrieve. Volume -> DB/2. Logo -> Oracle.

    What niche has msql got?

  • mySQL still rules. I've had enough problems with msql already...
  • 15 January 2001

    For Immediate Release

    Hughes Technologies re-enters the market and prepares to release the third generation of the Mini SQL database software.

    In the early months of the year 2000, certain matters that are internal to the company forced it to suspend all activities associated with its primary product, Mini SQL. As of the 1st of January 2001, those matters have been resolved and the company is now preparing itself to start offering the products and services for which it was known.

    "Our absence from the market has been disappointing for both our user base and ourselves." stated David Hughes, Managing Director. "Although we left the product available from the web site and didn't charge anybody who decided to use it, the lack of continued development and technical support has certainly hurt our users. In the next few weeks our operation will be back to full speed and we hope that users of our products will be happy with the software and support once again."

    From the first of January, the development team has been working feverishly to prepare the first public release of the third generation mSQL product. A complete source code audit has been undertaken and the software has been modified extensively to improve it's underlying quality and stability. "Virtually every line of code has been inspected during the audit. The result is that the source has been modularised and rationalised to improve stability, reliability, and our ability to further enhance the software" says Hughes. Further details of the many enhancements made to the software will be made available on the web site at www.Hughes.com.au.

    With the development team now back into full operation, the support and administration side of the company will start public work as of the 1st of February 2001.The release schedule for the mSQL 3.0 starts with an initial public release on the 15th of February 2001.

  • why? (Score:2)

    by Phexro ( 9814 )
    we've already got mysql, which works great for projects that need a small & fast sql backend. and for projects that need more enterprise-level features, there's postgresql. or oracle, for that matter.

    so, why do we need an updated msql? i know, i know, open-source competition and all that. but really. who's going to use this?
    --
  • How much longer until there aren't any end-users left? Does that even have a chance to come before the end of willing developers?

    There are more RDBMS engines than one can shake a stick at. Between MySQL, Postgres, Oracle, Informix, Microsoft SQL Server, etc. it's amazing there is room for more of nearly the same product.

    Well, if the performance is there I'll be the first one to switch over. Good Luck.
  • I don't understand why this fraudelent idea lives on. People are always saying, rightly, that the Open Source development model breaks the mould, and is radically different from the old.

    Well, in my opinion, the idea of competition neing good for software development id also outdated. Nothing would make me happier if, instead of halving a choice between half a dozen different poorly implemented solutions, there was just one excellent solution. The best open source projects have a monopoly, and suck all the development effort for that field - The Kernel and Apache for example.

    Why do we need several different versions of SQL to be on the go? It would be far better if there were just one, and the quality of the product would improve also.

    If only this were to happen across the board.

  • I remember when I used to use mSQL for the database backend of a site. Complete pain in the a$@!^. I remember having to write C-based scripts (there may have been perl or PHP interfaces at the time, but definitely not available from Hughes directly...). Left too much of a bad taste in my mouth, especially given MySQL works much better, is more featureful, and has an open source version to boot.

    I don't see what a new version is going to bring to the table (they certainly don't tell you much on the site, and neither does the antelope :-). Then again, I may just be cynical. :-)

  • Competition and natural monopolies are not mutually exclusive concepts. The kernel and Apache have natural monopolies because they were on the point, and continue to advance to the satisfaction of their users. If they were to falter, it is competition that would bring forth a competitor to topple them. Aside from HURD and other ossible kernel competitors, there exist multiple minor kernel forks as patches and development continues on old branches of the tree, so Linus' kernel really doesn't have a stifling monopoly that prevents competition as you imagine.

    Programs can also exist as monopolies within a certain field, while losing out to another program in a different field. For example `ls' reigns supreme in the linux desktop world, while `busybox' holds a relative monopoly for embedded devices. Real or imagined, there exists a perception of multiple playing fields for SQL databases, and until a given database gains enough momentum in all of these fields to naturally draw mindshare and become a monopoly, it does no good to browbeat competitors under the banner of `Unity at All Costs'.

  • At least change the name...

    really though. if you want someone to change the name it should be mysql. msql has been around alot longer than mysql.

    use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
  • No, it's the kind of competition that Banyan Vines gives SMB...

    --
  • you know, DBI on OpenVMS isn't a good way to get increased preformance.
    ------------
    a funny comment: 1 karma
    an insightful comment: 1 karma
    a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
  • Have you even used MySQL before. Obviously not because you'd know that MySQL is far ahead of msql. Using msql is just retarding yourself.
  • OpenVMS period isn't a good way to increase performance. In order to maintain fundamental compatibility with ancient versions of VMS (3.0, which had to easily run applications compiled on a PDP) many performance hacks had to be avoided. An unfortunate side effect is a very deeply nested performance barrier that is so entrenched it can be experienced with the latest versions on the fastest hardware. (AlphaServer GS)

    Since Compaq's acquisition of DIGITAL and it's cash-cow OpenVMS, they have invested a small sum of money to integrate a more unix-like feel into the operating system which is apparent in version 7.3.

    Responding to your post, I must inform you that not only is using DBI on OpenVMS a good way to increase performance, neither is using OpenVMS at all.

    Especially on a three-node VAXstation cluster.

  • I agree. But what is the value of the data in the database (integrity) relative to the importance of getting it in there (speed)?

    I am biased because the databases I build contain data that is valuable, so it is always a requirement that data is not corrupted.

    How do you like PG? I compiled the database, but never built anything with it.

    "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."

  • Especially on a three-node VAXstation cluster.

    Larry! It's so good to see you here on Slashdot at last, finally abandoning the scourge that is Usenet. Soon, you'll join us on the darkside. You will join me and Dan D. in our exclusive use of Windows 2000...
  • I'd think Mr. iCEO Steve Jobs would want iSQL.
  • In early 2000, David Hughes' ISP (Fast Access Network, aka FAN [fan.net.au]) was acquired by Asia Online. David was part of that acquisition, and had various management duties at Asia Online that overlapped with the period that I was there. I left in November, myself. I'm guessing that David is restarting mSQL development in order to answer the "what do I do now?" question and that he is no longer with Asia Online, though I do not know that definitively. Someone referred to an "antelope" on the website. That's most likely a buck deer, as David's long-standing nickname is "bambi".
  • I've used msql for a bunch of tiny web-based database projects over the past couple of years. I love msql because you don't have to deal with separate users, passwords, and grants tables. It just uses unix accounts and a simple acl to grant access. It is super fast, I've never had it crash or lose data, and I don't know enough SQL to use anything more complicated anyway.

    I wonder how many people who set up stuff using MySQL and others really need any functionality that isn't in mSQL?

  • One thing that MS SQL does have going for it is the most ANSI-compliant syntax I've seen in a while. Oracle will choke if you hand it:

    select Company.CompanyName, Contact.ContactName from Company left join Contact on Company.CompanyID = Contact.CompanyID where Company.CompanyName like 'Acme%' Oracle uses some arcane outer join syntax I can't even remember off the top of my head. I've written a crapload of Transact-SQL and some (more recent) PL/SQL before though.

  • Re:Erk! (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    Already done by MS SQL Server.
  • Why do we need several different versions of SQL to be on the go? It would be far better if there were just one, and the quality of the product would improve also.
    Competition. What is the point to improvement if there isn't something better out there?
  • Now where excactly does SQLServer fit into that. Bugs, Small DB, and More MS Shit -> SQLServer...
    :-)



  • Lets see, KDE and GNOME. I do beleive competition has improved both these projects. Apache does have competition, but its biggest competition isn't open source, I beleive Competition is good, if there is no competition, what drives you to add a new feature? Obviously the having the feature is some motivation, but nothing motivates you more to do something when someone else does it before you. You would obviously then add this new feature, but this time not only would you add it, but you make it better than the other products feature. What does that do? Obviously inturn makes the other product work better to better your project. And what does this result in? Improvement.

  • Re:why? (Score:3)

    by pitufino ( 203522 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2001 @09:41AM (#503988)
    mSQL is for simple data structures a lot more faster than MySQL. If the DB grows you can change to at anytime to mysql without changing the source by using an interface like DBI.
  • You're right. But I doubt that msql can compete if they remain out of compliance with the Open Source Definition. There is mySql at the higher end, and sleepycat at the really-low end. So, maybe we'll see a change.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • There is something better.

    Oracle
    MSSQL
    Progress
    DB2
    Etc...

    That's plenty of comptetion I think.

  • I see that the picture on the mSQL website [hughes.com.au] no longer has an anthropomorphic deer patting his ass, so there's one improvement!

    (Not that I didn't find it funny, but I thought it was somewhat inappropriate for a corporate website, ya know? :-)

  • Why ask me a question if you know the answer? Yes, I used MySQL for six months in web development for e-commerce and message boards, and found it severely lacking in all capacities, except that it had fast read/write times, like mSQL. I would like you to enumerate the differences for me. Besides functions; I already mentioned those.

  • Only a-l and n-z are left. (Score:4)

    by Pinback ( 80041 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2001 @10:42AM (#503993) Homepage Journal
    Everyone hurry, there is still time to write your own database implementation.
    Beware though, several names should be reserved: Linus gets lSQL.
    oSQL nSQL and fSQL go to OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD respectively. Apple will want aSQL, which will actually just be fSQL with the first letter changed. Stallman will write GNUsql, which much to his chagrin, will be called gSQL.
    Mircrosoft will sue Hughes, claiming that the m in mSQL stands for Microsoft.

    And I want bSQL. Cause its just BS.
  • What's up with these stupid moderators calling this offtopic? This article is about mSQL coming back, and this guy is celebrating its release, saying it's always good to have competition. Who are the competition? mySql, postgresql, and all other proprietary sql suites.
  • Yup, you are correct. I just think because MySQL is used so much more now that to avoid confusion, mSQL should change its name to represent the new development effort. It was a shear numbers thing, not an age thing...

    -Moondog
  • -= I own your ass! =-

    Sure man, if you say so. You don't mind paying for my toilet paper from now on, do you?

  • Linux? (Score:3)

    by cpeterso ( 19082 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2001 @09:46AM (#503997) Homepage
    The best open source projects have a monopoly, and suck all the development effort for that field - The Kernel and Apache for example.

    By "The Kernel", do you mean Linux? Remember that Linus choice to create a Linux, even though Minix and FreeBSD already existed. If he had felt, like you do, that competition is a waste of time, there would be no Linux today. If software monopoly is so great, then why was Minix (or Windows) not good enough to meet Linus' needs way back when?

    And not all "open source competition" is from other open source projects. Linux 2.4 has performance improvements because of competition from Windows 2000. Apache 2.0 is introducing a new threading model because of competition from IIS.
  • Sure it is, who and what would this compete with?

    Is this the same type of competition that Linux gives Windows?

  • It's alive... (Score:4)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2001 @09:56AM (#503999)
    "Quick Igor, get the wooden stake! The garlic's not working!"

    "Yeth, Mathter."

    "And now the axe! I should have listened to old man Ellison when he said you had to properly dispose of these things."

    "Thall we be burning it, Mathter?"

    "One step at a time, Igor. To properly dispose of a vampire SQL package, you have to make sure none of the embers escape, or we'll have to deal with this all over again!"


  • Why this Matters (Score:3)

    by scotteparte ( 240046 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2001 @09:57AM (#504000)
    mSQL is not really an RDBMS. It is more like a file cabinet. It has no functions, no transactions. Does it even have keys? (I think it does)

    The reason to use mSQL is to store a small amount of non-essential data for extremely rapid retrieval. It is easy to use, and, for the record, does have PHP driver support. Not that there is that much to support anyway :)

    Seriously, though, if you're going to criticize mSQL, you have to be willing to acknowledge that the only leg-up MySQL has (before the row-level lock gets finished) on mSQL is the ability to write functions. And it doesn't even have a procedural language, just C-functions! So don't stand all high-and-mighty looking down on mSQL from your MySQL pedastal - it's not that high off the ground.

Slashdot Top Deals

It appears that PL/I (and its dialects) is, or will be, the most widely used higher level language for systems programming. -- J. Sammet

Close