Is MySQL Slowly Turning Closed Source? 336
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?"
Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Insightful)
And is alienating the developer community just not seen as a problem at Oracle?
Pretty much exactly this.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone asking this question has obviously never dealt with Oracle.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well, MariaDB is still M, is is not?
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want LAPP...
Don't projects get Finn-ished when you use LAPP?
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Funny)
At least he's not using FreeBSD, Apache, PostgreSQL and PHP...
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have to disagree. I remember reading the mailing lists when StarOffice was first open sourced. The developers of StarOffice had a very closed source approach to development, and outsiders were not encouraged whatsoever. You'll notice the leaps and bounds taken by LibreOffice - from all the way to improving the build tools to improving the code base.
That wasn't an Oracle issue, but a StarOffice development issue.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's just say it's more convenient to paint pictures with certain colors we all understand.
That said, I agree and have experienced F/OSS projects screwing me over. GNOME screwed the whole community in a huge assrape manner. And GiMP played a small part in the whole thing.
It is clear to most tech people when a manager or above makes a decision where it comes from. When it's "no one got fired for going Microsoft" or similar, you have to realize they just don't know what they are buying. When they say something like "I want all MySQL replaced with Oracle because it's more professional" (which really happened to me) I have to just roll my eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
The mass public outcry over what GNOME has done constitutes a community, the small minority who are happy are expressing personal opinions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've run two big sites on PostgreSQL now, the first is a content management system for schools across the US with ~3M users with 1K to 3K active at the same time. 300G db on machines with 128G RAM, 34 15kSAS drives, HW RAID controllers and 48 AMD opteron cores. We ran a very aggressive autovacuum schedule, 8 threads with 1ms sleep and max work limit in the 5000 or higher range. We ran several other services on top of pgsql as well, a search engine, stats db, and session servers on it there. Each setup s
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Informative)
>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.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:4, Funny)
anonymous "one" can argue that black is white and get killed on the next zebra crossing too
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Anybody asking this question is obviously not aware of the OpenOffice saga.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:4, Insightful)
There is also no sane reason to use mySQL (or Oracle) when PostgreSQL is better than both in almost every respect.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, for most LAMP-stack applications that M is going to be MySQL or shit doesn't work. They're written to MySQL, and Postgres support is typically volunteer-maintained by one person. This sucks, yes.
Halfway solution: at least get the apps to move to MariaDB.
MySQL tombstone: G.I.F. (Score:5, Interesting)
This would double overnight if MySQL were declared pariah non grata, which is precisely the negotiation taking place in this kind of discussion thread.
Speaking of PNG, you do recall the Unisys GIF debacle? When MySQL dies, may its tombstone read G.I.F.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in other words: never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly they were so overwhelmed by their success with OpenOffice they want to replicate it with MySQL.
Re: (Score:3)
By gradually chipping away at the old code in every component until you can prove to the lawyers that you own the copyrights to the entire thing.
Then when you compile the next version. Your free to change the license to anything you like, even binaries only, no source code.
However you cannot retroactively remove it from a previously published version... they can however just stop hosting old archives of the source code, stop making available old versions that are GPL, and flip everyone the bird while saying
Missed title opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
"Is MySQL Slowly Turning TheirSQL?"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Insightful)
While the best option is to get rid of MySQL completely and use the great tools available for PostgreSQL, If you are stuck with MySQL, Adminer is the best thing out there, period. Even though it is web-based, it is a better GUI for MySQL than all the native clients put together. I say this in all seriousness, having had to support MySQL at a large institution for 2 years. Adminer is the only one, for example, that handles UTF-8 correctly. I kid you not. You have to realize that in order to work with MySQL in a full Unicode environment, EVERY SINGLE CONNECTION needs a couple of queries to be run after connecting, and you CANNOT AUTOMATE THIS. Adminer builds that into it's MySQL connection class. This is just one example of the careful thought put into Adminer. Also, the fact that it is web-based is actually a plus, not a negative, because it has a much more standardized way of handling things like copy/paste. Browse a table in Adminer with Firefox, hit the CTRL key, drag the mouse over a column or section of the output, CTRL-C, and you have a perfect spreadsheet-pasteable grid. I haven't been able to find another GUI tool to do this. Adminer FTW.
Unfortunately, Adminer's PostgreSQL support isn't quite as good as phpPgAdmin, or I would be using it for Postgres. It really has one of the best GUIs I have seen on a web-based app.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
.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 MySQL (and MariaDB) all I need to do is download the
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
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
.tar.gz and unpack.
However, the the comparison originally was against MySQL. Unlike PostgreSQL, with MySQL all you need to do is download a generic
(As to the postres user, I may be wrong about needing that if using a
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Informative)
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)
...and it's built into python:
import sqlite3 ...it's just that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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,
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:5, Informative)
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 /home/markw/pgtest/data -l logfile start
pg_ctl -D
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)
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
PostgreSQL in your home directory (Score:3)
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:
I haven't made things like building from one of the stable r
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:5, Insightful)
The database really isn't that important. It only becomes important once a DBA gets their hands on it and starts implementing LOGIC at the database instead of doing the logic in the application and fast, dumb, simple queries at the database.
That is not true at all. In fact wildly wrong. A good database is the tool you use to manage your data. If your system is properly designed, it is part of your application. A good database will manage concurrency, data integrity, and more. The idea that you move this out into the application geometrically increases complexity, or more likely, is ignored at your peril.
Just a simple query:
select * from songs where name like 'love%';
Assuming you have a non-trivial amount of songs, i.e. a song web site, this query can show a poorly implemented index. Once you start getting into sub-selects and joins, a good database can do quite well, a bad database, i.e. MySQL will fall down.
People who view the database as nothing but dumb storage usually end up implementing similar features in their code. They won't be as efficient, won't be standard, will cause the data to be processed more than it needs to be, and can't be tested as well as the database's system.
A good architect will know where and when it makes sense to do something in a database verses the application. Ignoring the capabilities of a database for some idealogical purity is ridiculous.
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not true at all. In fact wildly wrong. A good database is the tool you use to manage your data. If your system is properly designed, it is part of your application. A good database will manage concurrency, data integrity, and more. The idea that you move this out into the application geometrically increases complexity, or more likely, is ignored at your peril.
An increasingly unpopular view these days, sadly. It seems to me that with the advent of Agile and NoSQL, critical thinking skills in the development community are going out of style. Notice the original poster decries the idea of "LOGIC" being part of the data management level. That's right, stuff it all ad-hoc into the application layer and then watch things blow up when someone does a manual updated to a table, or someone (inevitably in large corporations) brings another application to connect to that database.
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Insightful)
you don't have to be a database expert to see that MySQL is still the best supported database back-end for most web application frameworks.
But it helps if you understand the levels of support and can make an educated decision about whether or not it makes a difference. PostgreSQL, by all meaningful measure, is technically a better database. Choosing MySQL over PostgreSQL, IMHO, is a bad decision for a few reasons: (1) Technically, PostgreSQL is universally regarded as a better technology platform in terms of quality, scalability, performance, flexibility, stability, adherence to SQL standards, etc.. (2) Since Oracle purchased MySQL the TCO has been increasing. (3) Also since MySQL was purchased by Oracle, the GPL-ness of the over-all package is becoming in question. Oracle has the right to stop releasing the product as GPL because of they OWN the copyrights and trademarks. It is not community owned like PostgreSQL.
So, PostgreSQL is the better technical choice, therefore you should try to use it. If you decide to use MySQL when PostgreSQL would have had more or less equivalent support, you may be painting yourself in a corner needlessly. If you do nothing to avoid the problem and generally accept and cultivate your own ignorance, then you are a bad engineer.
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore, from an objective point of view it can be concluded that cars are more difficult to drive than motorcycles.
Thanks for listening, so where's my +5 Insightful like parent has?
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are *really* saying is you think phpmyadmin is better than phppgadmin, which may be perfectly valid. As for "popular," Justin Beeber is currently more "popular" than the Clash.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what he's saying but I'm saying that I am sick of postgresql fanboys chiming in on every MySQL story. Postgresql is not some long lost secret, everyone using MySQL knows about it and they all have chosen not to use it. They are both fine solutions with strengths and weaknesses that don't really need to be debated yet again.
There certainly isn't anything to be gained by scrolling down and responding to every "I don't use Postgresql because..." because nobody is being converted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that I am sick of postgresql fanboys chiming in on every MySQL story.
If you don't like it, don't read it. Freedom is a wonderful thing. You are free to say you are sick of something, but other people are under no obligation to accommodate you.
Re:Just use Postgresql (Score:4, Informative)
GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON database.* TO user@hostname IDENTIFIED BY 'password';
Creates said user connecting from said host with said password and gives it unrestricted access to said database.
Pretty difficult huh.
IMHO... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IMHO... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, like MariaDB [mariadb.org], as mentioned in the summary (hint: 3rd word) ?
Damn! I should google everything.... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
SPOON!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
MariaDB (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait for another fork called EmanuelleDB.
Seriously, WHO names these DBs?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, my head exploded... thanks.
MySQL sweet spot (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:MySQL sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
MySQL is lighter than PostgreSQL.
SQLite is an embeded database; it's really a different sort of tool altogether.
Re:MySQL sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
sqlite do not work really well for concurent access, due to locking.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Everything useful is written against MySQL specifically, with Postgres support an afterthought. This sucks, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Developers need Oracle, Oracle doesn't need them (Score:2)
Oracle only cares about money (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Good, maybe people can start to look elsewehere .. (Score:3, Informative)
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].
Close-Sourcing Open-Source Software is Fail (Score:3)
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.
MySQL MXJ connector vanished from downloads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno. Hadn't heard anything about it being pulled, although I notice the last release was about 18 months ago. Are you sure that functionality's not in Connector/J now?
You might try asking on their forums [mysql.com] about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll ask around.
Oracle might see MySQL as competition? (Score:3, Insightful)
WHY is still anyone using mysql, when there is PG? (Score:5, Insightful)
WHY is still anyone using mysql, when there is Postgresql?
Just fork it (Score:5, Funny)
Forking worked for Libreoffice, I dont see why it couldn't work for MySQL...
slashdot should stop accepting questionmarks (Score:4, Funny)
in the title of a story.
would prevent a lot of bad written summaries.
PerconaDB (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Translation (Score:5, Funny)
oracle is actually an acronym: One Rich Asshole Ceo, Larry Ellison
Re:Translation (Score:5, Funny)
I believe it is One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should write an article with the headline "Is it reasonable to mention Betteridge's law of headlines every time an article appears whose headline is a question?"