What is Digg?133 Comments
- shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58seeing one of its licenses is GPL i sort of doubt its legal to keep the source from people...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+321) "My Ess Que Ell"...
2) Its a database server - darkchild, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29I have to agree with you there. MYSQL uses multiple licences so I am sure there is always going to be an opensource version even if they do not provide binaries. If they decide to go completely closed source, I am sure some people would be willing to continue working on the free version and create some sort of fork. Some people may move to other opensource databases e.g. PostgreSQL.
- MrFrankly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27@Chewie67 - That database has been around for ages in the form of PostgreSQL. Which is an excellent open source database. But for mysterious reasons it still didn't make MySQL fade into history.
- delinka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25@phjr:
Being the copyright holder you can change the license any time you want. And no, you are not subject to the license that you released the previous version under, otherwise you would not be able to enforce releases of your product under other licenses. The GPL grants rights to others besides the copyright holder.
Let's suppose you produce an open source RDBMS but you have customers that need to make changes to the source (and redistribute) without the source redistribution requirements of the GPL (the reasons your customers want to do this don't matter). So they pay you, the copyright holder, the one who owns all the rights to the code, for the privilege of a different license. If you were subject to the GPL, then this business model couldn't work.
It boils down to this: the copyright holder can do what they want with their copyrighted works regardless of what licensing schemes they choose to release under. That said, the last version to be released under GPL can always be available in either format from other companies or individuals. Assuming that this former employee knows what he's talking about, I can see this as an opportunity to fork and open source project. - SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Postgresql is about to if they really pull this ***** of.
- cdawzrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I think sounding out acronyms sounds dumb, except for rare cases. Like "SCSI" because "scuzzy" is just fun. But "Sequel"? No.
And for those of you too lazy to wiki it, the official pronunciation is "My S Q L" as bitrich said. - balr0g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Time to fork
- airjrdn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23You may hate to say it, but as someone who's used SQL Server since 6.5 and MySQL for probably 6yrs now, there's no comparison. Comparing SQL Server to MySQL is like comparing a Lamborghini to an Escort. You look very far into SQL Server Integration Services, the power of T-SQL, and the tie-ins with Analysis Services and Reporting Services, and there's no comparison at all.
- arachnist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Finally. Maybe people will start finding better solutions than mysql (like postgresql, sqlite or firebird).
- sammysnake, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Every time I hear someone say "Sequel" instead of SQL it makes me cringe and then out of no where I feel uncontrollable rage against the person who just said it... what happens next, I can't say but usually that person doesn't say "Sequel" ever again.. that's if they can still talk!
- uncleFester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15eh, the whole things sounds (to me) like a good excuse to seriously try figuring out postgres. i use mysql at work to back-end a bunch of system statistical/performance data and if they're going to start complicating what is already a for-cheap only-helping-myself process by hamstringing my ability to stay ahead of bugs.. well, nuts to them. it doesn't help i already can't build a functional perl-dbi connection between the two on my platform (perl + mysql + aix + (gcc | xlc) == ).
semi flamebait.. but we're also a db2 shop for the real db engines and postgres really seems to resemble what little i see/know about db2 so it might be wiser anyway.
-r - sw17ch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@MrFrankly
I can't agree with you more. PostgreSQL is fantastic. I used to be a big MySQL junkie, but had to use PostgreSQL for class. I didn't like it at first, but once I had about a week's experience with it, I started using features I couldn't live without. Going back to MySQL now is just painful.
I think the reason MySQL is bigger than PostgreSQL (especially in enterprise) is because MySQL's MyISAM database structure runs circles around PostgreSQL as far as speed is concerned. - nomore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Pronouncing SQL as Sequel is incorrect. SEQL is pronouced Sequel, but SQL is pronounced Ess Que Ell. SQL was derived from SEQL, and should not really be the same pronounciation.
"Most professionals" don't realise it.... quite funny really. - rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Apache Derby? Interesting... Right, thanks for mentioning it, or I'd never have known: http://db.apache.org/derby/
- ggoyal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Time to move to Apache Derby, finally.
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Postgresql has always been a better database. Since version 8 it has also been comparable in speed.
If you need mostly selects and raw speed Sqlite might be the way to go.
I see very little reason to stick to MySQL. - ggoyal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I thought it was well known. Anyway, it was donated by IBM. IBM still supports it under the name Cloudscape. Java 6 has it built-in as JavaDB
Its a mature database, manages to beat MySql in many benchmarks and supports almost all of Sql99 (as far as I know).
I have used it to make an application to support offline data entry (in embedded database) and uploading it to a central database. I use SquirrelSQL to administer and maintain it. (Great program by the way)
Its one of several of its kind (Java based small-footprint databases), but its the most feature packed.
But if you hate Java as some people do, you might not want to touch it either, though for running as a client-server database (as with MySql), you dont need to know the Java language. You only got to have Java installed. - UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7End of lamp?
- Monkeyget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7From the link :
"MySQL [..] owns all MySQL Codebase so they are free to stop releasing new versions under GPL at any time, or as many other “OpenSource” companies have some features only in commercial version."
"The fact Community/Non paying users are getting anything at all from MySQL can be considered expression of their good will."
That plus the fact that oracle bought InnoDB and can kill it whenever it wants, it doesn't bode well for users of MySQL.
PostgreSQL anyone? - Crusoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Of course MyISAM is fast, it's not ACID compliant! It's easy to write a fast db when your first worries are not data consistency or transactions. That's why historically MySQL was small and fast, it didn't bother with it. But sometimes that bit you in the butt.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Things *could* go badly from this point on, but not necessarily.
If MySQL becomes even the slightest hassle then Postgres here I come. If they try to muscle themselves out of the OSS community by switching to a more restrictive license then unfortunately there would probably be a fork of the latest GPLd version. If they don't want the OSS community then we don't want them, and again I would go straight to Postgres. Nice of them to bootsrap their project with the community and then seemingly turn their back once it's a salable product. (sarcasm) ... but we will have to wait and see what else they do in the near future. - ScoobySnack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sql#History
"During the 1970s, a group at IBM's San Jose research center developed a database system "System R" based upon, but not strictly faithful to, Codd's model. Structured English Query Language ("SEQUEL") was designed to manipulate and retrieve data stored in System R. The acronym SEQUEL was later condensed to SQL because the word 'SEQUEL' was held as a trademark by the Hawker-Siddeley aircraft company of the UK. Although SQL was influenced by Codd's work, Donald D. Chamberlin and Raymond F. Boyce at IBM were the authors of the SEQUEL language design.[1] Their concepts were published to increase interest in SQL.
The first non-commercial, relational, non-SQL database, Ingres, was developed in 1974 at U.C. Berkeley."
Seems like either ess-que-ell or sequel should be perfectly valid ways to pronounce SQL, although when it is incorporated into a product name like MySQL then I would think the product team would get to decide how to pronounce their name. - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I must admit that I don't like the looks of it. Is MySQL AB pulling a SugarCRM?
Seems like some subtle FUD in:
http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Possibly-silly question, but : *Why*?
Why the sudden decision to stop giving binaries to users? It seems a very bad idea, one that will probably drive a lot of said users to some other DB system..
- Ben - jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Wait a moment... I can still get to the binaries... what's up with this? Or is this saying that there will be no more updates?
SQL 2005 Express edition, anyone? (As much as I hate to say it) - r121, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Most professionals pronounce it like "my sequel""
Even my information systems professor pronounced it "sequel" and I cringed every time he did it. - xenubaba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5ok. postgresql. you will be the new king
- manitoba98xp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5For the time being, they're still available. I don't mind clicking "Community" or going to dev.mysql.com....but if this goes away, I'm afraid MySQL's tagline will have to change to "The world's second-most popular open source database".
- bartbrinkman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5One reply to answer them all; wikipedia.org
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4there are no binaries for the latest version ( 5.0.30 and onwards). if you go to where you just said, you'll find there are no binaries for 5.0.30, only 5.0.27.
dick head. - Innatech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is an astoundingly poor decision is MySQL follows through on it.
After being enshrined in the LAMP stack, you'd think they'd have more sense than to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Hello, PostgreSQL. - inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4time to switch to postgresql .. postgresql is better anyway
- jfinke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem that I see from all of these suggestions (and it is the same problem if I want to run IIS, Portal Server, Exchange, etc) is that you need a windows server license to run SQL Express. And while I would not mind learning more about Windows and running it on my home server for my db needs, there is no way that I am going to pay for it. I am just going to use Linux/BSD.
The other problem with switching right now is that many applications support MySQL as their primary db, if not their only db. - m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Ruby blows.
PostgreSQL > MySQL.
SQL can be pronounced both ways.
And kudos to the OP for the engrish headline. - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What's the cool way to pronounce Postgresql ? Now that's a mouthful!
- Ironlink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4For all I know, they could be on holiday since it's Christmas and new years. I don't see much use in going berserk like this, with no official word or anything.
Hopefully, the new source will be linked to and compiled soon enough; time will tell. - cardinal23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think it's a good idea to actually stop building binaries for the multitudes of distributions out there. All dists already do that, and it probably takes the MySQL company quite a few of resources to keep up with all the dist-specific patches and so on. Let them concentrate on making their products better instead of wasting time on trying to keep up with all the dists.
My bet is that there wont be any problems getting the binary you want for your platform in the foreseeable future. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not surprised. Any code base that has a for-profit corporation with exclusive ownership of copyright is liable to pull this. MySQL always seemed like the type that was OSS just as a market-share gimmick. I wouldn't trust PostgreSQL either. Firebird should be safe. I'm not familiar with the others.
I think this might be a good time for folks to troll the available MySQL code for stolen GPL or other copyleft content. - prammy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ya, as much as people love to hate Microsoft, SQL Server is an awesome product.
- risotto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The sources are not hidden! They are simply not available on the webserver, BUT you can get them from mysql.com's FTP server! This is clearly not a breach of the GPL and is a quite common practice. The subtitle of this digg entry is rather misleading and inaccurate. I don't understand this made it to the front page!
- geniusj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why don't you trust PostgreSQL? It has no corporation with development resources behind it. It's not dual licensed, it's BSD licensed. I see no reason not to trust them.
- prammy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@glock22ownr:
Before you start crapping on redhat, try grepping for '@redhat.com' in the kernel source tree. Then grep for the same in the source tree for gnome. You will find that redhat has contributed a LOT to linux development.
Redhat's business model is not aimed at small shops or individuals. They are aimed at large corporations and in this area they seem to be doing very well. More money for redhat = more paid developers for Linux.
Besides they release the source to every GPL component in RHEL. They also released their installer under the GPL. Using this allows organizations like Centos to create free RHEL clones for others to enjoy. And Centos is indeed binary compatible with RHEL.
Then there is the fedora project which is also funded by Redhat. - linuxquestions, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You can get the source for the latest version (5.0.30) here:
ftp.mysql.com:/pub/mysql/src/mysql-5.0.30.tar.gz
--jeremy - steppenw0lf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7MySQL not only provides no binaries, but hides latest source release too.
There is no info on site or manual that 5.0.30 was released and what bugs were fixed.
This info is available only for Enterprise customers. - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11I have to agree. Say what you want about Microsoft (and there's a lot that can be said), but SQL Server is an Ace. .
- ricree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Chewie67
Well, one of the awesome things about open source is that something doesn't need to replace mySQL at all. We just need someone to fork the GPL'd version and continue on from there. Considering the widespread usage, I have no doubt that someone will do this if the sources diverge too much. - aiken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@scratched: you have some interesting comments regarding MSSQL, considering that it is a fork of Sybase (at version 4.72, if I recall). What features do you find MSSQL lacking that are present in MySQL? Or even Oracle for that matter? (There certainly are some, like sequences, but I'm curious what you find indispensable but missing).
As a coder, I like Oracle, but as a DBA, I prefer MSSQL (I'm not a good enough DBA to admin Oracle, and they [rightfully] aren't interesting in making it easy to administer). MySQL is great for quick and dirty projects, but the lack of decent query optimization tools irks me. - dhenderson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seems easier to down load it now that it was in the past, go to www.mysql.com, click download, pick the package you want.
- phjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@delinka
thanks for clarifying -
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is