Will Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn Stay With MySQL? 245
littlekorea writes "The world's largest web-scale users of MySQL have committed to one further upgrade to the Oracle-controlled database — but Facebook and Twitter are also eyeing off more open options from MariaDB and cheaper options from the NoSQL community. Who will pay for MySQL enterprise licenses into the future?"
Re:and so meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Will businesses needlessly give away money?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and so meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds like more of a disadvantage of the application itself rather than the DB platform.
This is 2013... use an ORM.
Re: and so meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
How did MySQL get such critical mass?
Probably the main reason is that it has a "design philosophy" of "if you can't do what the user wants, better to do something and say it's all OK than to give an error", which some people mistake for ease of use.
Re: and so meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
MySQL got its critical mass by it's easy, tight integration built into PHP. Any random college student could build a website backed by a database pretty quickly. It was a total failure to anyone that wanted to do serious work with it, but serious work was never an issue. As those college students entered the workforce, they tried to keep the tools they learned. People worked around their tech's limitations until new versions added it in, instead of migrating to competitors.
So it was a perfect storm or filling a niche for a community that just kept growing.
Re:and so meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as MariaDB is requiring copyright assignment [mariadb.com], there's every reason to believe it will be sold off again the same way MySQL was. The FSF gets away with that for GNU projects because they've never abused contributor trust before. Monty is no FSF, and there's no reason believe MariaDB will remain outside of commercial control any better than MySQL did. I can't believe people are falling for the same trick again.
PostgreSQL aims for SQL standards conformance [postgresql.org] as much as possible. It's hard sometimes due to the difficulty of participating in the standard process [lwn.net]. The idea that MySQL does a better job in that area is kind of odd though. You'll have to list some sample Postgres "oddities" to be credible with that claim.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and so meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)