Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Is MySQL Slowly Turning Closed Source?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the seems-like-a-reasonable-suspicion dept.

Databases 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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oracle doesn't care about developer people (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033703)

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 (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#41033725)

Anyone asking this question has obviously never dealt with Oracle.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034221)

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 (5, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034383)

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 (5, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034437)

I don't want LAPP...

Don't projects get Finn-ished when you use LAPP?

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034653)

So basically, you think anyone holding an MBA is dumb and every techie is smart, right? And obviously, managers take decisions based on irrelevant business considerations like technical support and economic viability, instead of the always significant technical aspects like for example which language a product is developed with, right?

you know, I won't even try to argue with you. i have much more interesting things to do.

P.S. I just recently was left in the cold by an open source project that I liked, but was unable to keep on delivering stable releases,

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034663)

MariaDB is supposed to be the drop-in replacement.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034259)

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 (5, Informative)

forgot_my_nick (1138413) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034635)

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

Java is NOT free as in Libre.

OTOH one can argue that anything with GPL isn't either.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033833)

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

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (3, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034251)

Oracle is quite fond of slapping their over charged customers with a wet fish from time to time, There is no reason to expect them to "support the community" other than with a millstone round the neck. They never have in the past.

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 (3, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034305)

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.

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (3, Interesting)

lindi (634828) | more than 2 years ago | (#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).

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034385)

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

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (5, Funny)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034537)

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

Re:Oracle doesn't care about developer people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034747)

If it can be bought, it can be perverted.

Fuck all of you (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033705)

Open Sores is for LOSERS

Lots of Love,
Oracle

Re:Fuck all of you (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034077)

Open Sores is for LOSERS

Hey, that actually explains why Oracle bought MySQL!

Re:Fuck all of you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034397)

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
fucking retard

Missed title opportunity (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033739)

"Is MySQL Slowly Turning TheirSQL?"

Re:Missed title opportunity (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034253)

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:Missed title opportunity (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034555)

So a fork from somebody without children would be named "NobodySQL"? Or "NoneSQL"? "NoSQL" is already taken. :-)

Re:Missed title opportunity (2)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034739)

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]

Translation (0)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#41033755)

Larry=big
Ellison=douche

Re:Translation (5, Funny)

MaerD (954222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41033989)

oracle is actually an acronym: One Rich Asshole Ceo, Larry Ellison

Re:Translation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034185)

Dude has no eyebrows. He looks ridiculous.

Just use Postgresql (5, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Just use Postgresql (2)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034023)

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's slower, less intuitive, and makes it more difficult to accomplish simple tasks.

Re:Just use Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034557)

What alternatives are there for Linux? There's the web based adminer and the plain mysql command line, but nothing feature-par with MySQL workbench that I know of.

Re:Just use Postgresql (2, Interesting)

Sesostris III (730910) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034029)

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 facility to run PostgeSQL out-of-the-box and stand-alone, please feel free to correct me!)

Re:Just use Postgresql (3, Informative)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Just use Postgresql (1)

Sesostris III (730910) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034381)

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 is not stand-alone for my user!).

One day I'll try this, but this is not running PostgreSQL 'out-of-the-box'.

If you know differently, please share how. Thanks.

Re:Just use Postgresql (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#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

Re:Just use Postgresql (4, Informative)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:Just use Postgresql (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034265)

...and it's built into python:

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

Re:Just use Postgresql (1)

Sesostris III (730910) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034413)

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.

Re:Just use Postgresql (4, Informative)

he-sk (103163) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.)

Re:Just use Postgresql (0, Troll)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034075)

Sorry but you're biased and wrong about how easy Postgre is to use. I've tried numerous times to switch from MySQL to PostgreSQL and every time I found it less easy then MySQL is. There is a reason that MySQL is more popular, you can install phpmyadmin and away you go, although there is phppgadmin it fails to capture the ease of use that phpmyadmin has. The rest of the postgresql tools suffer from the same problem.

Re:Just use Postgresql (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034083)

Listen... sometimes I just... smash my ass down on everything in existence. It can't be helped.

Re:Just use Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034579)

How the ef is this +5 Insightful?

phpmyadmin is terrible, there are better web based tools such as Adminer which also support PostgreSQL. Also, if you're using PostgreSQL you should try pgAdmin3. You will never go back to phpmyadmin.

PostgreSQL even supports SQL, for starters.

Re:Just use Postgresql (4, Interesting)

slack_justyb (862874) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Just use Postgresql (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034271)

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 (1)

munro (265830) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034329)

I am interested in your claim that DB2 maybe does date maths bettert han PostgreSQL. I use both quite regularly and find DB2 to be clunkier, less consistent, weaker in its handling of timezones and missing all sorts of operations. But I am probably biased and possibly failing to research DB2 as thoroughly...

Re:Just use Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034631)

You forgot to mention ON DELETE|UPDATE CASCADE is read and subsequently ignored silently. Screw your relations, MySQL doesn't need integrity.

Re:Just use Postgresql (3, Interesting)

suy (1908306) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034243)

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 (3, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

IMHO... (5, Funny)

ZeroPly (881915) | more than 2 years ago | (#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... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033845)

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

Damn! I should google everything.... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Damn! I should google everything.... (2)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034353)

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 wondered why nobody had a clue what to do with those tickets.

Re:IMHO... (3, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034031)

SPOON!

Re:IMHO... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034049)

Obligatory xkcd:
http://xkcd.com/419/

Re:IMHO... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034577)

Seing the number, I at first thought it's a scam. :-)

Re:IMHO... (1)

not_surt (1293182) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034219)

If you don't see the FORK! it can't eat you...

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033793)

No [wikipedia.org] .

Re:No. (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034541)

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?"

Obviously (3, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Oracle is killing computing science again... I hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033805)

Oracle is killing computing science again... I hate Oracle.

But then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033809)

But then, what did you expect from Oracle?

MariaDB (5, Insightful)

euxneks (516538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41033831)

MariaDB is a drop in replacement for MySQL which was forked a while ago: http://mariadb.org/ [mariadb.org]

Re:MariaDB (2, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41033917)

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.

Re:MariaDB (-1, Redundant)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034287)

I don't want a DB named with a girl's name. It's weird... and Debian is weird too. MikeSQL would've been better. It even sounds more like MySQL... MyaSQL would've been acceptable I suppose. MoreSQL? Hrm... MostSQL! MineSQLen... I like good names. Oracle bought a good name. They are ruining a good name. Tragic.

Want to guess why MySQL is called MySQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034309)

http://kb.askmonty.org/en/why-is-the-project-called-mariadb/
The 'MySQL' name is trademarked by Oracle, and they have chosen to keep that trademark to themselves. The name MySQL (just like the MyISAM storage engine) comes from Monty's first daughter "My". MariaDB continues this tradition by being named after his younger daughter.

Re:MariaDB (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034599)

I don't want a DB named with a girl's name.

Why?

Re:MariaDB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034733)

I don't want a DB named with a girl's name. It's weird...

it's cool, Maria is also a common middle name for males.

Re:MariaDB (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034357)

Can't wait for another fork called EmanuelleDB.
Seriously, WHO names these DBs?

Re:MariaDB (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034611)

Seriously, WHO names these DBs?

Overconfident assholes who think their little brats are above everyone else.

The result: The code is as bratty and annoying as his stupid moron kids.

sqlite did something similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033839)

Some of the tests are included with the code, but others are proprietary and only available under license. It bugged me and I've stayed with Berkeley DB. Info here [sqlite.org] (see "TH3 test harness").

Re:sqlite did something similar (2)

fatp (1171151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41033861)

But Berkeley DB is another oracle product??

Re:sqlite did something similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033907)

To be fair, the proprietary ones aren't even really useful outside of special environments. Staying away from sqlite for this reason makes little sense. This was also always how it was handled in sqlite. Nothing was taken away from anyone.

MySQL sweet spot (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033859)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033939)

Every shared web hosting joint in the universe has it deployed, ubiquity.

Re:MySQL sweet spot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033975)

Same thing with PHP, awful language but everyone is using it.

Re:MySQL sweet spot (4, Insightful)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034069)

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

Re:MySQL sweet spot (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034267)

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:MySQL sweet spot (2)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034319)

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

Developers need Oracle, Oracle doesn't need them (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#41033863)

We'll see.

moD uP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033889)

No, but are you slowly turning Japanese? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41033931)

Because that would be awesome!

Oracle only cares about money (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Oracle is spending the money (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034035)

and MariaDB developers are benefiting from it.

So the developers of MariaDB, who don't contribute a dime to MySQL are mad that the test cases are not included. What about actually spending some of your own money and time to tests the code you are ripping-off from? (legally).

I'm not a big fan of Oracle ... but they are the ones investing on the software and are the owners of the IP. So they have the right to say what is released and what is not. Just because the developers of MariaDB are lazy does not mean that they have the right to complain. After all they are living off the work of others while adding barely nothing to the re-branded product.

Re:Oracle is spending the money (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034167)

I'll take two of whatever this guy is smoking, plus his check from Oracle so I can buy more.

Re:Oracle is spending the money (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034283)

Irony Alert.

Good, maybe people can start to look elsewehere .. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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] .

Close-Sourcing Open-Source Software is Fail (2)

popo (107611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034179)

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.

Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034255)

does testing anyway? ;)

MySQL MXJ connector vanished from downloads (1)

brajesh (847246) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034295)

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.

Re:MySQL MXJ connector vanished from downloads (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034425)

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:MySQL MXJ connector vanished from downloads (1)

brajesh (847246) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034511)

MXJ includes MySQL for several OSs (windows, x86, osx, solaris) and installs MySQL automatically. in all it's 130MB jar, /J is just MySQL driver for Java (4MB). Itried searching forums and found this - http://lists.mysql.com/java/9354 [mysql.com] , someone complaining about missing MXJ.

Re:MySQL MXJ connector vanished from downloads (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034567)

I'll ask around.

It's open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034307)

It will do what it has always done under these circumstances, fork.

Re:It's open source (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034463)

Which license is MySQL under? CDDL? GPL2? GPL3? Any other?

Oracle might see MySQL as competition? (3, Insightful)

etangreal (1050192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034375)

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?

Only idiots pick MySQL over PostgreSQL. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034473)

Unfortunately idiots usually constitute a vast majority.

WHY is still anyone using mysql, when there is PG? (5, Insightful)

someones (2687911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034493)

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

Just fork it (4, Funny)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034517)

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

Re:Just fork it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41034687)

It's joke right ?
Just search for MariaDB in this page.

slashdot should stop accepting questionmarks (3, Funny)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#41034709)

in the title of a story.

would prevent a lot of bad written summaries.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?