digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Sun buys MySQL

blogs.mysql.com — Didn't see that one coming. Blog contains details to what this could mean for both companies. May as well be one of the most important takeovers of 2008 already!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • billflu, on 01/16/2008, -8/+612Please, Sun, don't f' it up!
    • yule, on 01/16/2008, -4/+73Very true. I hope they can maintain the excellent product that MySQL is. Just use the company to make your products better please :)
      • circuitjump, on 01/16/2008, -1/+24Agreed. don't try to fix what's not broken. Though companies these days tend to ignore that kind of advice but I'm hoping for the best.
        • georgebnet, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1They'd better not try to fix anything that _is_ broken... they'd end up with a SQL database...
      • noahhoward, on 01/16/2008, -9/+2They can't sort out their own crap.
      • marchaos, on 01/16/2008, -8/+1We might get Java Stored Procedures in MySQL, finally.
        • bejayel, on 01/16/2008, -6/+19Yeah use a slow language in an application that needs to be fast. That would be smart.
          • Ryosen, on 01/17/2008, -1/+21995 called. It wants its FUD back.
          • ninja0, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1unfortunately, sun made and supports java. I mean, hell, its even a desktop environment in solaris 10... and its SUPER slow compared to CDE..........
        • ruiacp, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4We might have good tools to create frontend apps for MySQL databases with Java. We don't need new alternatives to do easy work, we need new functionality and improvements, not alternative ways to do the job, specialy if those alternatives are worst.

          It is for sure a great new for Java and Solaris communities. I hope it doesn't become a bad new for Gun/Linux and BSD communities.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 01/16/2008, -7/+2What is this "MySQL" you speak of? Is it anything like JAVA(tm) DB?

        /sarcasm
    • poonaka, on 01/16/2008, -32/+5HAHAHAHA it's game over for MySQL!
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 01/16/2008, -2/+7If so its also game over for most servers and websites. MySQL is robust and FREE. Here's to hoping it stays that way.
        • manitoba98xp, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7If it doesn't, the community will fork it.
        • digitalarcanum, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4I don't think sun will ***** this one up, sun seems to be on a "give everything away for free or dirt cheap" phrase. OpenSolaris and Java being big examples here.
          • m3mn0n, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Don't forget OpenOffice, the de facto Linux productivity suite.

            Sun made. Sun managed.
    • ell0bo, on 01/16/2008, -17/+5Oh hell... looks like i need to grab the current source before I loose my favorite FREE db! Although maybe I just worry too much... At least SUN opened up JAVA and they may not screw this up.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 01/16/2008, -1/+145They can F it up all they want.

      The latest vesrion of MySQL is GPL. No matter what SUN does later, any previously downloaded mysql is GPL ... so if sun screws it up, someone can just fork it to a new project...
      • positron, on 01/16/2008, -1/+37Fork you SUN!
      • Dhalgren, on 01/16/2008, -0/+41Fork it to OurSQL ;-)
      • wattersm, on 01/16/2008, -10/+12PostgreSQL is better any way.
        • HigherLogic, on 01/16/2008, -1/+11I'm not going to argue for/against that statement, but MySQL is supported, well, everywhere.
      • sotopheavy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Well then no worries. Lets see how they do.
      • Scaryclouds, on 01/17/2008, -3/+2In Soviet Russia project forks you!
      • ninja0, on 01/17/2008, -1/+5Apple users would want to change it to iSQL.
    • skidooer, on 01/16/2008, -21/+2Does it matter? With most of the world starting to look at document-centric databases, such as CouchDB, for their database storage needs, and using Postgres when they actually need a SQL server, there's isn't much of a need for MySQL anymore.
      • drlha, on 01/16/2008, -1/+19You really think there are more CouchDB users than MySQL?
        • skidooer, on 01/16/2008, -8/+2Obviously not. Will there be more CouchDB (or something similar) than MySQL in the future? Most likely. SQL isn't very well suited for what most people use MySQL for.
          • vade79, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8I'm starting to think you're CouchDB's lead developer or something.
      • vade79, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4You could argue there isn't a need for CouchDB....and the argument would make sense given the number of people that use MySQL.
        • skidooer, on 01/16/2008, -2/+3By the same logic you could argue that there wasn't a need for Digg given the number of Slashdot users. And yet, here we are.

          SQL is not a panacea. There are better tools for certain jobs. Your blog is better stored in a document database. Your accounting system is better off in an SQL database. Therefore there is a need because everyone has different needs. The problem is that people are using SQL for things that would be better off in other kinds of databases.
          • vade79, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4What makes CouchDB/etc better for storing documents exactly, other than it sounding like it's good for storing documents? Lately(since MySQL5) SQL actually has been a panacea for me.
          • bejayel, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1The limitation of couch db are absolutely horrid. 2 gb limit is database file limit?! This DB is barely stable, let alone ready to be use widespread as a replacement for MySQL. You are a representative from the project arent you?
      • bejayel, on 01/16/2008, -0/+13Document centric database? You tell some guy with 40,000,000 database entries that they should move to a document centric database and watch him laguh in your face while you never get another job again.
        Ans MySQL and Postgres are pretty on par with eachother. If Sun botches MySQL i would have no problems switching to postgres.
        • skidooer, on 01/16/2008, -6/+1Amazon, for example, are well known for using document-centric databases. Are you laughing at Amazon? It's about using the right tool for the job and MySQL usually isn't the right tool where people normally use it.
          • MtheoryX, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5I'd actually love to hear your factual argument, instead of hype. Can you give specific examples, please?
          • krebcycle, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3everywhere i've ever used SQL is to store structured data with complicated relationships. I suspect that is what most people use databases for as well. Explain why a SQL database (be it MySQL, Oracle, or SQL Server) is not as good at this as CouchDB.
          • Ryosen, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Amazon runs on Oracle.
    • PRlME, on 01/16/2008, -14/+22Yea dont ***** it up like how you guys ***** up......
      nothing you tards, every time a company takes over another every one yells dont ***** it up with out even looking at the whole picture
      The Sun acquisition can only be good for MySql.
      Rock on Sun and Rock on MySql.
      What we should be looking at is Sun Vs Google
      These two huge Open Source giants are going to clash real soon.
      • bejayel, on 01/16/2008, -1/+19Sun and Google have nothing to do with eachother...They aren't in competition at all. I really dont see how they are going to "clash with eachother". If anything, due to their differing targets, they would be better off collaborating and i wouldent doubt if they do so heavily in the future.
        • pengas, on 01/16/2008, -2/+2The Android team will beg for your pardon.
          • bejayel, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Didnt the android team break the license agreements? I havent read much on it.
      • PRlME, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5Sun has JAVA ME(for mobile phones) Google went and like one programmer said reinvented the wheel cause there new Gphone uses Java(but its not really Java)
        Read it here:
        Sun's worried that Google Android could fracture Java
        http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9817048-2.html

    • rpgmaker, on 01/16/2008, -2/+40Please Sun, PLEASE!!! Don't bundle Java on MySQL...
      • ninja0, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1SQL = Fast
        Java + SQL = Slow

        If they ignore those simple guidelines, they have to have lost their minds. But they probably will anyway..
    • RockinRoel, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Is this doesn't work out, we've still got that elephant…
      • cleure, on 01/17/2008, -4/+0And IMHO, that elephant is light-years ahead of MySQL in terms of features, stability, and overall integration.
  • rhedrick, on 01/16/2008, -45/+6What's the purpose? Did the MySQL people sell out? Did they really need the capitalization? I think this is a warning to all 'free' software users - show support by sending money. Otherwise, big companies will buy up the 'free' software companies and probably screw them up.
    • yule, on 01/16/2008, -3/+26Don't jump to conclusions. We have yet to see what their plans are.
    • inigomntoya, on 01/16/2008, -5/+14Good point, I better download the latest release of MySQL and keep it somewhere safe...
      • saisumimen, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1And make sure to encrypt it!

        Just make sure the encryption program isn't written in Java; it'll contact the "hive mind" !
    • drachemorder, on 01/16/2008, -1/+21Sun is fairly decent about supporting open source projects, so this may not be a bad thing. Reserve judgment until we see more evidence.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -0/+21"What's the purpose?"

      Uh, to make money. MySQL was headed for an IPO. Sun decided to buy them instead.


      "Did the MySQL people sell out?"

      In what sense? Were they after money? OF COURSE THEY WERE!

      "Did they really need the capitalization?"

      It'll be much easier to take on Oracle as a part of Sun.


      " think this is a warning to all 'free' software users - show support by sending money. Otherwise, big companies will buy up the 'free' software companies and probably screw them up."

      ROFLMAO!!!

      If you send them lots of money then the "big companies" are even more likely to buy them. Big companies like to acquire smaller companies that make money.
    • rpgmaker, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7I don't think this is a bad thing. Sun has proven to be part of the FLOSS community for quite some time now. This would be a bad thing if Oracle had bought them instead...
    • tech42er, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4It's SUN, not Oracle or MS.
    • bluemansteele, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2$1 billion is not selling out! It's cashing in!
  • zorrobiwan, on 01/16/2008, -3/+86$1 billion ... damned !
    • dorkino, on 01/16/2008, -12/+49That's $1 billion US, which these days amounts to about 35 cents compared to what it would have been in the 90s.
      • piesforyou, on 01/16/2008, -3/+11But you wouldn't kick it of bed, would ya?
      • jasz, on 01/16/2008, -15/+1considering that 1 billion = 1 thousand million as opposed to 1 million million (which I thought was the rule).. it's not that much any more...

        http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm
        • redxxx, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1That's what you get for not being an American.
      • outsid3rNo17, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5Will this lame joke ever get out of style?
        • shortyjacobs, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4Not any time soon. With the rate of depreciation of the "american sense of humor", combined with a strong international market for the "america sucks" feeling, forecasts a healthy future for the "1 US dollar is worth exactly one gram of cockroach *****" joke
    • worldsbestgamer, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5I guess you haven't seen what Oracle got BEA for.
      • JQP123, on 01/16/2008, -0/+11It's all relative ... to revenue.

        Oracle paid $8.5 billion for BEA ... but their annual revenue was over $1 billion

        Sun is paying $1 billion for a company whose revenue just barely cracked $0.05 billion.

        Relatively speaking, Oracle paid 5.5x annual revenue, Sun is paying 20x annual revenue, almost 4 times as much.
      • JQP123, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8Sorry, that should read,

        "Relatively speaking, Oracle paid 8.5x annual revenue, Sun is paying 20x annual revenue, more than twice as much."
  • yule, on 01/16/2008, -3/+37Also see

    http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/winds_of_chang ...
    http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2008-01/sunflash.20 ...
  • Error601, on 01/16/2008, -58/+10They should have bought something decent like Postgres.
    • yule, on 01/16/2008, -4/+6Maybe the business model was more of a decision factor than being technologically advanced.
    • darkixion, on 01/16/2008, -1/+15Postgres should never be for sale. I don't like the idea of a company having control of it as they could choose to close it whenever they want, or put very tight controls on changes to it. I've always preferred Postgres anyway, which isn't owned by any company.
    • inigomntoya, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5I do agree with your comment, I think that MySQL is pretty limited in some aspects - where Postgres is very feature rich.
      I think it was a decision that came down to elephants VS. dolphins. Of course, elephants never forget, but they don't sell software like cute dolphins do.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -1/+15Sun couldn't "buy" PostgreSQL as it wasn't controlled by any company.

      Btw, Sun has been supporting PostgreSQL for about two years now.
  • X-Cruciating, on 01/16/2008, -7/+105Considering that MySQL powers some of the largest sites, this might be a nice strategic move to get a foot into the RDBMS game and wag it back to the likes of Oracle and M$. However, I hope they keep it alive and healthy for the open source community. For I cannot imagine LAMP without the strong "M" in it.
    • acidbass, on 01/16/2008, -1/+27I wouldnt worry, the day that Sun closes source to MySQL is the day we fork the last open source version of MySQL and continue development under a new name.
      • weeble, on 01/16/2008, -2/+36Sun will never close the source. Sun is all about open sourcing everything... heck, Sun even open sources some of its hardware. Sun is VERY much an open source driven company.
        • acidbass, on 01/16/2008, -4/+8Thats what you say now.......

          You can trust a company all you want, ill trust the GPL.
          • weeble, on 01/16/2008, -1/+12Sun won't mess with the GPL. It's not a smart move. They know the GPL inside and out. Poke around in the CEO's blog and you'll see how serious he is about open source. Sun has bet the company on open source....
          • Bamborzled, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2All this anti-corporation sentiment on Digg sickens me. Of course, because Sun is bigger than MySQL AB, they must have some secret plan to de-GPL MySQL.
      • bysin, on 01/16/2008, -1/+13How about we call it OurSQL?
        • SteveMax, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5No way! LAOP doesn't sound right at all!
      • SimonGray, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2MyPRQL?
      • aahmed753, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6openSQL
    • dbalaski, on 01/16/2008, -3/+1Not usual a company buying into an Open Source company,...

      I wonder why they did it... I don't think it was to wag it back in the face of Oracle....
      FYI: Oracle bought part of MySQL's engine already --
      Oracle has acquired Innobase Oy for an undisclosed sum of money in October, 2005. (that's MySQL Transactional Engine)

      Strength ties maybe???

    • WarBiscuit, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4I can, LAPP has a nice strong P in it :)

      Not as catchy though. Maybe postgres needs renaming to MyPostgreSQL.

      Just kidding, love 'em both.
  • JoaoPe, on 01/16/2008, -8/+910WHAT? Didn't they know they could just download it and run without buying it?
    • yule, on 01/16/2008, -48/+13"When your application is not licensed under either the GPL-compatible Free Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation or approved by OSI, and you intend to or you may distribute MySQL software, you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL product."
      http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/comme ...
    • dorkino, on 01/16/2008, -6/+86Thanks for the laugh!
    • shockingbird, on 01/16/2008, -3/+44hahaha... I totally needed that morning laugh.
    • drachemorder, on 01/16/2008, -5/+58*snort* Good one. That'll teach me not to read Digg while drinking coffee. How I'll ever clean this mess out of my keyboard, I really don't know...
      • inigomntoya, on 01/16/2008, -1/+29dishwasher
      • worldsbestgamer, on 01/16/2008, -4/+23Are you the same person I see posting this all over digg that is supposedly laughing that hard at everything they read that coffee comes flying across the room? I see this comment weekly.
        • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+19Haha...You owe me a new pair of pants. I just laughed so hard I crapped myself.
        • drachemorder, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5I've made a similar comment maybe once before, but I've definitely seen other people mention snorting coffee as well. I expect the amount of coffee that really is ejected onto keyboards as a result of Digg posts is nontrivial, though.
        • ninja0, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Tons of ppl drink coffee.
        • amplifiedshock, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I drink cheese whiz
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -14/+6They couldn't just download MySQL's customer database ;-)
    • NickMcRump, on 01/16/2008, -27/+6This joke was funny when I read it on Slashdot, not so much when you copied it (unless you're the same person of course)
      • JoaoPe, on 01/16/2008, -6/+11I don't read Slashdot since Digg became my news site. Anyway...
      • objectcode, on 01/16/2008, -9/+2we all know two people cant post the same comment without copying. well the "it was funny the first time" joke was funny the first time. no wait, it was never funny
      • fakekevinrose, on 01/16/2008, -4/+10people still read slashdot?
    • kgool, on 01/16/2008, -10/+2Remember, it is the support you are paying for with MySQL.
    • se7en11, on 01/16/2008, -16/+6Someone's been stealing comments from slashdot again --> http://tinyurl.com/2kshe2

      LAME!
      • JoaoPe, on 01/16/2008, -6/+2lol funny. Whatever! Like I said I don't visit the F Slashdot like 1 year from now. It use to be on my bookmarks toolbar before Digg... but not anymore.

        I couldn't find the comment when NickMcRump point it out. It's F funny maybe he copy it out. I don't care anyway.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6ZOMG this guy stole my comment from, slashdot!!1!!
        loloz jk XD
        but seriously even if he did who cares? slashdot is like the 7chan of social news sites, no one else would have seen it and the comment was really funny, so who cares?
    • mrdiggdude, on 01/16/2008, -13/+2You dumb ***** ***** now you comment has +500 diggs you ***** retarded *****
    • ebmnoize, on 01/16/2008, -9/+2lol or may be it is a coincidence ?

      exact copy of the comment from slashdot


      Why did they buy it? (Score:5, Funny)
      by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Wednesday January 16, @08:18AM (#22065460)
      Didn't they know they could just download it and run without paying?
      • stang4783, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4so sad you have comment envy...you actually took the time to call this guy out on his comment because it has lots of diggs?!
    • frankzzsword, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1rofl, nice you cracked out there... it surely made my morning fun
    • thephosphorbox, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2oh.. oh crap... GUYS!! CALL ACCOUNTING!! STOP PAYMENT ON THE CHECK!! OMG GGGUUUUYYYSSS!!
    • mm2000, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Best comment ever! =)
  • vroom101, on 01/16/2008, -16/+28UNBELIEVABLE! ... i mean ... WHAT! ... HOW? ... WHY?!?!

    • piesforyou, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4cha-ching!
      • vroom101, on 01/16/2008, -3/+2US $,$$$,$$$,$$$ ... that's the only thing I could figure it could be. And that's scary. I hope, I really, really hope the light -- those bright rays -- from the LAMP isn't on the verge of being extinguished by the fanning of mighty dollar bills.
  • vroom101, on 01/16/2008, -5/+52O.K, who's next? . . . Apache Software Foundation?
  • MaxiWheat, on 01/16/2008, -19/+3What's next ? Google to buy PostgreSQL ?
    • inigomntoya, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Nah - Google would just make their own. But, you never know what Novell has up their sleeves... It might help them compete against Oracle - poorly. Not because of the software, but because of their past strategies.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3Novell go up against Oracle? Are you daft?!

        Novell can't compete against Red Hat, what the hell makes you think they could take on Oracle?
        • inigomntoya, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2What makes you think they wouldn't try?
          • bejayel, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1they DID sign an agreement with Microsoft after all eh.
    • cramd, on 01/16/2008, -0/+12No, Google is a very heavy user of MySQL.
    • rmxz, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4The organizational structure's very different too. MySQL AB employed most of MySQL's core developers. PostgreSQL's core and primary contributors are scattered among dozens to hundreds of companies (depending who you count as major contributors) including companies too expensive for Sun to buy (Tom at Red Hat, the Fujistu-Supported-PostgreSQL team at Fujitsu), etc.
    • skeeterbug84, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3The lead developer for Postgres works for Sun.
    • MalDON, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Google should just buy Sun.
  • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -3/+50Didn't see that coming.
  • BrPyne, on 01/16/2008, -10/+22NOOOOOOO!
  • richardiscool, on 01/16/2008, -17/+5I could have sworn Oracle had already bought it.
    • plizard, on 01/16/2008, -6/+2that's pl/sql
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7Larry tried and failed.

      You can bet he's really stewing right now...
    • rmxz, on 01/16/2008, -1/+15What Oracle bought was Innobase - the company who makes the InnoDB engine that MySQL uses for it's tables that support transactions.
      Then MySQL said they could use BDB for an engine that supports transactions.
      Then Oracle bought Sleepycat (the company behind InnoDB).

      MyISAM tables are still (AFAIK) under the control of the MySQL guys; and I heard they have plans of writing their own transactional engine (falcon?) though IMHO it'd be better if they looked into building it on one of the other F/OSS transactional backends out there.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Dude, you're confused.

        Sleepycat was the company behind BERKELEY DB.
  • truspect0r, on 01/16/2008, -43/+210It's ok Sun bought it just don't turn it into a slow turd like Java.
    • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -23/+17Java is the fastest programming language to run non-natively.
      • plizard, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1apparently you've never heard of apex.
        • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -4/+0There is about 1000+ companies who use the word APEX. Only one I'm familiar with is Oracle APEX.
      • falafelkiosken, on 01/16/2008, -3/+2LOL
      • Prodigal19, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6I dont know why you are being dug down. What you say is virtually true.
      • 0Degrees, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5I thought Python was very comparable, if not better, in terms of speed?
      • synyster, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1if java is the only programming language
    • TomFrost, on 01/16/2008, -10/+42Ever use Eclipse? It's the industry standard IDE.. Java, C++, PHP.. more and more languages are integrated every month. It's fast and smooth and extensible as hell.

      It's also written in Java.

      Just because you've found some bloated programs doesn't mean an innovative language that keeps getting faster and faster and more widely-adopted is a "turd".
      • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -4/+25Agreed. Don't blame the language, blame the programmer(s).
        • outsid3rNo17, on 01/16/2008, -5/+5I've done some minimal programs in Java and they're still slow and very memory hungry.
          Sparx Enterprise Architect (UML design) takes about 20MB of memory when running and doing stuff. Poseidon has much less features and takes about 300MB and brings my Athlon XP 2GHz to its knees. I havent tried doing multiple schemes in a single instance in Poseidon (uninstalled it immediately) but I guess it would make it much worse.
          So I wouldnt be too sure that its alwas the programmers' fault.
      • elvenseven, on 01/16/2008, -13/+9Show me one Java app on Windows that runs quick, not to mention the horrible 'gtk' like gui.
        • TomFrost, on 01/16/2008, -2/+13Umm, I already did. Eclipse.
        • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Java doesn't use GTK, its a C GUI library. Limewire runs pretty quick.
        • jordan314, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3Eclipse is fast. Everything else (Azureus, Limewire) is slow though.
        • PhireN, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Limewire is not quick, it causes my mums computer (850mhz amd duron with 384mb ram and xp) to drag to a halt, using 60% plus cpu. And Eclipse still feals a bit bloated and slow (thats on my much faster computer)
        • agaudet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2PhireN
          Windows will cause your computer to drag to a halt without applications
          I suggest a better operating system for such an archaic pos
          Damn Small Linux comes to mind :P
          PCLinuxOS will run fine with no problems on that thing ;o if you want a more user friendly experiance
      • Psi57, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8You can have the GUI be indistinguishable from your native apps with one line of code (I agree that Metal is awful). In my experience, every gram of speed and efficiency you lose with Java is repaid with a kilo of ease of programming. Anyone experienced with the framework can knock out a full functioning GUI app, in Notepad, from scratch in a couple hours.
      • thecheatah, on 01/16/2008, -3/+7I used it last semester on my 2.0 gig processor. Even the auto complete as you typing feels laggy. I remember using the M$ .NET IDE on my 500mhz celeron and the auto complete worked flawless. Eclipse is the reason I dislike using IDEs, for me atleast, it feels like its using too many resources. Often so slow that it slows down my programming rhythm.

        Its the truth I speak from experience. If you ARE going to digg me down might as well tell me how to make eclpise run faster. Its an awsome tool, its just annoying.
        • bejayel, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2Eclipse is just too ***** buggy. It runs fast, but the workspaces are absolute *****. Trying to change a workspace on the fly is like eating your own *****. Getting CVS to work properly in it is ***** reatrded (though that could also be attributed to my instructors). The formatter is ***** stupid. You tell it one thing, but no matter what you tell it god damnit, your getting the ***** defaults half the time.
          Eclipse has way too many little quirks that make it almost impossible to use productively half the time.
        • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+4Wow, bejayel...it sounds like someone had a bad day...
      • kevcool, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2Hrmmm. Scores of people highlight that Java is slow and the standard response is ***** coding on the part of the developers. I guess Java must attract some ***** developers - as flies to a turd.
      • HaMMeReD, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Anyone who thinks java is fast is an idiot. I've used eclipse, it's good, but it's not fast. Any other IDE would run circles around it, maybe not in features but definitely in speed.

        Yes, there are cases where a good programmer in java can outdo a bad programmer in C, but O(N) will run faster outside the jvm always, so with the assumption of good programmers on both sides, the non-java will always be faster. E.g. utorrent vs azureus. Azureus is programmed great, and is a amazing java app, but utorrent is still about 100x faster.

        I understand you java fanboys love your language and think it's god of all languages, I do agree java is probably one of the most robust languages out there. But that doesn't change the fact that the JVM introduces overhead on every operation.

        Oh, and by the way, I'm managing a java project at work right now, java was chosen because the language was good and because speed is not a necessity, also because it needs very strong data connectivity options. So i'm not some kind of java hater, but come on java is slow now and it's always been slow. Yes it gets faster as the jvm improves and as hardware improves, but it will never surpass the equivalent native code.

        Java is about trading speed for flexibility, and yes good programming is 10x more important in java, because inefficient algorithms will ***** kill you.
      • elijahalcantara, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I've used Eclipse before, it is slow and used up too many resources.
    • PRlME, on 01/16/2008, -9/+2@TomFrost and others
      If i am correct every Java program has to run in a VM? like a Java VM? is that why i always have to download Java?
      and the Java scripts on a web site are different from the other "Java" and Java script ones are built into the web browser?
      • joebaloney, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1Ever heard of .NET?
      • TomFrost, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8Java and Javascript are two completely different languages with completely different functions -- don't be fooled by the name. Javascript is what does fancy stuff on webpages. The only thing Java has to do with the web is the Java Enterprise Edition, which allows you to make server-side executing webpages similar to PHP or .NET. Java Applets can also be written -- little programs embedded in webpages. These used to be super popular before Flash went mainstream, but are now only used for specialized applications like embedded IRC clients.

        Java does need a VM to run, and that's what you download. When you "compile" a Java application, you get Bytecode. It's a compressed set of instructions that aren't specific to any computer -- because of that, you need another program that reads those instructions and tells your computer's processor what to do. And that's what the VM does. So the idea is that as long as someone writes a VM for a platform, that platform can run a multitude of programs written in Java. Pretty slick -- there's some speed drawbacks and RAM drawbacks, but with the introduction of Java 6, those drawbacks have been greatly reduced.
      • leadingzero, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4yeah, that's the beauty of it. "Build once; run anywhere"
    • RyeBrye, on 01/16/2008, -3/+19Java sure as hell isn't slow.
      • falafelkiosken, on 01/16/2008, -6/+14no, just the applications written in it
        • billbillbilly, on 01/16/2008, -3/+7which is the coders fault not the languages, the same people who make slow java apps make slow apps in any language
    • stargatesteve, on 01/16/2008, -1/+12I have found java to be plenty fast enough for software requiring fast reaction speed, such as a game. Well-written JAVA is almost always faster than poorly-written C. (from my experience)
      • makis, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2right.a Ferrari idle is always slower than a Honda civic running on an highway.from my experience...
    • mikecc, on 01/16/2008, -9/+5you guys blaming the "programmers" are stupid. everyone knows java is slower than other high level programming languages. the key reason? other programming languages (c for example) create binaries that can be ran directly while java creates bytecode that must be ran through the java jvm, adding a step in the process, hence making it slower. there are advantages to the java jvm though, allowing any java code to be executed on any computer that has the java runtime environment.
      • kecher, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7Please man educate yourself and listen to those "programmers". I am a long time Java programmer and I can tell you from the first hand that speed of Java is comparable to other high level languages. Java was interpreted and slow in the beginning, but that was before the invention of Just In Time compiler, and that happened almost a decade ago. Try to run some low level tests your self before copy&pasting text from some 1996 article. This guy made a good effort for example: http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmar ...
        • mikecc, on 01/16/2008, -3/+1Uhh..the JIT is used automatically by the JVM. Like I posted below, C was faster than Java. Period. Where did I copy and paste? You are the one linking to some crappy article. Everything in that article is, MAY be a performance it....Java is catching up....SOMETIMES faster
          • kecher, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6Listen, Java by definition cannot be absolutely faster than pure C, because it is a higher level language, but my point is that there is no significant difference between the two in "data crunching" tasks, therefore the subject is irrelevant. Run some valid benchmarks and get back to me ;)
    • mikecc, on 01/16/2008, -8/+5mike@panix1:~$ time ./hello
      Hello, world!

      real 0m0.024s
      user 0m0.001s
      sys 0m0.001s
      mike@panix1:~$ time java Hello
      Hello, world!

      real 0m0.175s
      user 0m0.143s
      sys 0m0.014s
      mike@panix1:~$
      • 0Degrees, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3Big surprise! Shell scripts are directly executed as the shell process, which just so happens to be directly tied into the Kernel. WOW!
        • mikecc, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4I don't understand what you said. Sorry, I really am trying to understand, maybe you could be more clear.

          Here, I'll level the playing field. Since it can be argued that Java has to still compile, I will even time the compile and time to execute the program compared to java.

          mike@panix1:~$ cat c.sh
          gcc hello.c
          ./a.out
          mike@panix1:~$ rm a.out
          mike@panix1:~$ time ./c.sh
          Hello, world!

          real 0m0.078s
          user 0m0.043s
          sys 0m0.012s
          mike@panix1:~$ cat java.sh
          java Hello
          mike@panix1:~$ time ./java.sh
          Hello, world!

          real 0m0.164s
          user 0m0.147s
          sys 0m0.013s
          mike@panix1:~$
      • kecher, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6@mikec Your test is wrong on several levels, first being that you included a boot time of Java virtual machine in your test. So you got actual runtime and startup time of the process summed up, while your other example had the benefit of the direct execution since it's own machine (kernel) was already running.
        Also dumping some text is not a serious test of anything.. According to your logic, BASH is the fastest programming language around since the simple command
        > time echo "Hello World"
        would probably produce even faster measurement on your machine. So it means I should now rewrite my Quick Sort algorithm in BASH?
        And don't dump text on the screen, try running some real world algorithm few million times and compare the mean times to produce a valid result. Examples:
        http://kano.net/javabench/
        http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmar ...

        Please note that I don't wish to forcefully convince you that I am right about the speed of Java VM, it is much better that you find that out yourself, but it would be useful for your future development if you accepted a correct methods of measurement. this is infantile..
      • 0Degrees, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Right on kecher, I didn't want to spell it out for him as it is painful obvious to anybody with a little programming experience. I would even say that if you time the hello world application, not counting JVM start time, would be just about as fast as the bash version. Of course you couldn't use the system "time" command to perform this test, you could use JUNIT. They are making the same system calls for christ sakes, I can't see why it would take any longer at all in real-time execution.
    • Claw787, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Java is NOT slow. Bad programming makes it slow.
    • stockjones, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Correction, server side java can be very good, java client applications on the other had...kludgy and slow at best. I wish more engineers would realize java is not good for everything.
    • RajAtWork, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3Early 90s called - want their comment back. Nearly all first-tier websites are powered by Java today.
    • Rowan187, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1My exact problem with this issue, Java is possibly the slowest environment you can run something under, and anything Sun has done has been with java. Incorporating java into the mysql system (assuming thats whats going to happen) will impact both home users with having to use java to host their own mysql servers (even for simple testing), and both on text-based servers, which under no circumstance need the bulk installation and runtime that is java.
  • plizard, on 01/16/2008, -7/+124select *
    from sun
    where status = 'orly'
    order by eid asc;
    • coleki, on 01/16/2008, -1/+25eid status response date
      -----------------------------------
      0 orly yarly 16012008
    • tuntcickle, on 01/16/2008, -7/+18what language is this? please excuse my programming ignorance
      • dark_helmet, on 01/16/2008, -0/+21Its SQL.
      • TheBigSquid, on 01/16/2008, -3/+10Down digg this poor guy's comment down. He's trying to learn.
        • Bamborzled, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Guess you're trying to learn as well.
          • TheBigSquid, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Whoops, thats what I get for trying to post at work on the sly.
      • aussieNickuss, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3Structured Query Language to be exact.
      • ninja0, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1It's used to store database information, and often used with some kind of nice gui for employees to pull information from it easily.
        The things these guys are typing out though are the actual commands you type into the database to query it for results.
        For example, you could store a table full of employees in your company and store phone numbers, names, positions, etc.
        All big companies use it.
        • tuntcickle, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1thank you so much for giving me a serious answer.
          so this is a query within the "sun" database for instances with the characteristic 'orly' (i get the slang "oh really" thing)?
          and "order by eid asc" is a kind of signature?
          • aussieNickuss, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2"sun" is the table, "status" is the field/column (So they are looking for a record where the status field is equal to "orly") and "order by" means to sort the results by the "eid" field asc (lowest to highest as opposed to "desc", which means highest to lowest).
        • gremlinchief, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4@tuntcickle: Seriously...there is such a thing as google. Aka, if you don't understand something that others seem to understand, you go to this site called google.com...
  • hockey, on 01/16/2008, -32/+3Skip the blogspam
    http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2008-01/sunflash.20 ...
    • ikickass, on 01/16/2008, -1/+29The blogspam you speak of is the official MySQL blog...
      • hockey, on 01/16/2008, -13/+1So what. It's still a blog. Why not link directly to the press release on sun's site? For one thing it could probably handle the traffic better.
        • Intangible360, on 01/16/2008, -1/+16It is still a blog but it is not blogspam. Blogspam is using unoriginal content to generate traffic and money.
        • hockey, on 01/16/2008, -2/+7I stand corrected.
  • Mageling, on 01/16/2008, -16/+72Why does Sun have any money at all?
    • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -0/+32They sells hardware and support for their products.
    • inigomntoya, on 01/16/2008, -24/+3They sell overpriced hardware with customized software that they charge out the nose to support.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 01/16/2008, -1/+16They have some of the best built X86 servers ( 16 CPUs in a 4U and 32 on the way in the same chassis ) and their T2000 and T5220 are selling well?
      • kildurin, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Netra T2000 is blowing away ATCA X86 at my company. I think you hit on it.
    • RockinRoel, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5Well, they've got a bunch of thin clients in the library of the university I go to… Much better than individual PCs.
      • stargatesteve, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4and all the servers the thin clients were hitting could be sun systems, too.
    • maehem, on 01/16/2008, -1/+21Because even though you think Sun has gone out of business, Sun still sells about $12 BILLION worth of hardware and software a year. That's BILLION with a B! Oh, and they seem to be making a profit too! Who would have thought?
    • blofeld9999, on 01/16/2008, -4/+23Because you touch yourself at night.
      • inigomntoya, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8So true - it would be interesting to see how many porn sites are running on Sun servers...
      • MalDON, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Actually...
    • ninja0, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Sun is a HUGE company, most people just don't know about it because most people don't know what happens in the background. Nearly all huge servers all over the world use Sun systems with Solaris as an OS. NTP (network time protocol) servers, large businesses, etc. They aren't well known by the average person.. but they are big.

      They are also heavy in with the military and such. Ever heard of project black box?
      http://www.sun.com/emrkt/blackbox/index.jsp

      Solaris and sun suck in general to the average person, they are all for business essentially. Great quality, stability, uptime, and speed in all their products.
  • alanr19, on 01/16/2008, -3/+306Thank f*ck they got it before Oracle did. Sun are relatively good guys remember. Oracle is the devils sweaty testicles.
    • vikingdiplomat, on 01/16/2008, -4/+35dugg for "is the devil's sweaty testicles." at the very least
    • LordVoldemort, on 01/16/2008, -20/+2"Sun are relatively good guys remember."
      You are obviously not American.
      Look, "Sun are" doesn't make any sense.
      • Ravatar, on 01/16/2008, -4/+5He obviously IS American. We're not exactly the shining beacon of grammar proficiency.
      • aahmed753, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1this inglish profesor cheking out gramer and speling in giikiest oyeb cite in da planet. nice going.
      • UnstableMind, on 01/16/2008, -2/+7Since Sun refers to Sun and affiliates, shareholders, investors, employees, etc... "Sun are" is grammatically correct since Sun is not singular like the one star we are orbiting, which is where I think your getting confused.
        • sekhui, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4no, "sun" refers to a corporate entity. sun, the corporate entity, "is" or "is not" doing something.

          to refer to sun's "affiliates, shareholders, investors, employees, etc", say "affiliates, shareholders, investors, employees, etc" "are" doing whatever they are doing.

          also you yourself say "Sun is not singular" when by your own logic it should be "Sun are not singular". stop being a pretentious snob.
          • UnstableMind, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2LOL, great reply, you got me and I stand corrected.
    • yohnstoppable, on 01/16/2008, -4/+3Are you implying there is something wrong with the devil's sweaticles?
    • morninglorii, on 01/16/2008, -7/+1How can you thank a verb/exclamation?
      • Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2How can one thank "goodness" or (insert deity here) if one is agnostic/atheist?
        • lime148, on 01/16/2008, -2/+3So all goodness is related to a deity?
      • skyshock1, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7Like this:

        Thank ***** no one is digging your comment.
    • allengeer, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4Oracle was too busy buying BEA today.
    • Stuffgazer, on 01/17/2008, -0/+0A very good point.
      /Here comes the Sun, do do do do... Here comes the sun, and I say: It's all right.../
      • LargeTrout, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I hope the devil beats you with his sweaty testicles for that.
    • thephosphorbox, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I concur! Very soon my company will be shedding Oracle.. hopefully by '09 !
  • Waymoot, on 01/16/2008, -4/+16According to Swedish media they got 800 million dollar in "cash" and 200 million in options.
  • xdvx, on 01/16/2008, -8/+41Oh no, I hope they don't have ideas rewriting mysql on java
    • chedabob, on 01/16/2008, -1/+15Eurgh, don't be disgusting.
    • TomFrost, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9No need to make a cross-platform application in Java. The joys of using open-source libraries :)
    • maehem, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4No, they won't do that. They have something called Derby, which is a Java based Database.
  • PlutoIsApluton, on 01/16/2008, -2/+44Best possible outcome I think. MySQL were going to go public this year - and would have been under huge pressure to become more proprietary. This seems to protect MySQL for at least as long as Jonathan is at the helm of Sun.
    • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -7/+1The helm of Sun can't even protect Sun themselves.
    • Gavagai80, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Being public doesn't mean pressure to be proprietary. Red Hat is a publicly traded company.

      Sun should be good for MySQL, though.
    • SuperMoses, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2// MySQL were going to go public this year - and would have been under huge pressure to become more proprietary //

      But Sun is public
  • JasonCox, on 01/16/2008, -18/+2This is the part where I'd normally state my intention to bail on MySQL- but seeing as I only have one application running off it, eh, I'm not that concerned. Anyway, here's to Sun bringing licensing fees on part with Microsoft, gods know they're going to try squeeze every dime they (Sun) can out of us.
    • digguserer, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2You sir, are an idiot. I run tons of sun software and don't recall paying them a cent. What do you think the F stands for in FOSS?
    • elebrio, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Ya, just like they charge out the ass for open office .
  • connieLingus, on 01/16/2008, -28/+1how do you buy open source software? duh don't they know they could have downloaded it for free?
    • ikickass, on 01/16/2008, -0/+21Did you seriously just use the same joke that is the 7th comment on this page?
    • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -0/+10I don't think he's joking.
    • yohnstoppable, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7If you are going to reuse a joke already on this page, at least improve the delivery. You are no Ned Holness, that's for damn sure
  • zorrobiwan, on 01/16/2008, -10/+1What's next ?? BEA bought by Oracle ..

    http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2008_jan/bea ...

    What ? It's done ??? Damned !! ;-)
  • buckrogers1965, on 01/16/2008, -4/+25See all you investors out there.

    Open source projects can provide a good return on your money.
    • crossmr, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6for every one of these there are hundreds or thousands which do nothing..not exactly good odds.
      • rhodydog, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1What I don't understand is for all the people who contributed code for nothing who 'worked' outside the company (ie did it for the fun of it), what did they get out of the 1 billion?
    • arctic, on 01/16/2008, -5/+2Wait... MySQL... an open source program... makes money!??!
  • r5a2k3, on 01/16/2008, -0/+55I'm not really sure how to feel about this.

    Being a MySQL user for years now and probably the first database I've ever used, I've always liked them being on their own doing their thing. I liked the way the community was, hanging around in the official #mysql was fun and enjoyable and it was just great software, pretty much the best free database software there is and comes with it a load of professionalism.

    Although, reading the blog it does look promising, I just hope sun doesn't drop the ball.

    Good luck to MySQL / Sun, this should be interesting.
    • inajeep, on 01/16/2008, -8/+3And those wild beer soaked, chick infested parties. Damn they were great. What? You were never invited?

      I was just kidding then.....
      • billbillbilly, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1are we talking about the same mysql?
    • RajAtWork, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Discover Postgresql - with a license that is protected from this kind of takeover
  • johnnybluejeans, on 01/16/2008, -18/+6Sun has money?
  • manicleek, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7I would have greeted this news better if it wasn't for that picture
    • zenbyo, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Wondertwin powers activate!!!! I'll form a successful open source company! I'll form a bucket of cash!!!!
    • KaneElson, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I agree, that tshirt is awefully unprofessional.
      Please wear a shirt or atleast a nice fitting polo top to a handover.

      It also looks like that t-shirt is a size too big, he could have done with a medium or something.
  • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -18/+2I started hating Sun when a stupid judge forced MSFT to take down their JVM.
    • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6Awh! One thing MS doesn't have control over!
  • ivandir, on 01/16/2008, -9/+3Power to the people....Oh wait :(
  • karolisonline, on 01/16/2008, -14/+3I don't like the idea, that open source software becomes owned by some big corporation. Ok, maybe Sun isn't that bad, but You never know, one day M$ will buy sun and shut down mysql project and then what?? i hope postgresql won't sell it's soul.
    • weeble, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3... and Java... and openSolaris.. and OpenOffice.org... ha... right.. never happen. MS doesn't have the brains... and Sun isn't so stupid.
  • infinite411, on 01/16/2008, -17/+2***** rat bastards. Everyone is ought to make money. Label something open source, reduce costs by having enthusiasts create the bulk of the code, then sell. What the *****!! How can you sell something that doesn't belong to you?

    What's next discreet buying blender?
    • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you read licenses. How do you think OSS companies earn money. Donations?
  • Yodzilla, on 01/16/2008, -21/+2Sun is a terrible company and will run this into the ground.
    • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Apparently not since they been around for how long and have $1 billion to buy out MySQL.
      • synyster, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1MS is "nice "company since they been around for how long and have $$$$billions
  • micklerlop, on 01/16/2008, -20/+1the end of mysql *sigh*

    on the upside oracle buys bea
  • foxtyke, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10This can be both a good thing and a bad thing, if Sun has any sense, they'll leave the existing team and goals in place and allow thing to continue as normal but, if they try to control MySQL by changing things up in terms of platform focus development and the like then we'll probably see another database option come into the limelight and replace MySQL in the LAMP framework (hopefully it too would start with M).
  • theghoul, on 01/16/2008, -6/+22Alright Sun dont ***** up, we're watching! If you port mysql to slow-poke java, I'm out and will convert from LAMP to LAPP (postgres).
    • 0Degrees, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Porting a DB to Java? Come on, you aren't for real are you? Java is not intended for running enterprise level DB's...
    • msergeant, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1Convert to postgres anyway, you won't be sorry :) I've been a FAPP and LAPP user for a long time and for real db stuff I'd never go back to the land of LAMP or FAMP.
  • lichme5000, on 01/16/2008, -13/+5C'mon, people. Where's the "Wow. Just...wow" comment I've come to expect from 17-year-olds these days? Don't let me down!
  • Xim66, on 01/16/2008, -15/+2No No No No! Java + Anything is just a bad idea.
    • jd1972, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7One of the fastest, scalable trading engines in the world runs on Java - Chicago Mercantile Exchange's Falcon Engine.

      JAVA's GUI may be slow, but other than that, its a pretty fast technology and that's from a C# coder.
    • cledet, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4You obviously don't program in Java then.
  • daxsymbiont, on 01/16/2008, -9/+1"May as well be one of the most important takeovers of 2008 already!"

    yeah, the world revolves around open source; everyone knew that of course.
  • Zipko, on 01/16/2008, -1/+11"...This broad penetration coupled with MySQL's strength in Web 2.0, Software as a Service (SaaS), enterprise, telecom and the OEM embedded market make it an important fit for Sun."

    BINGO!
    /looks around
    sorry, continue the press release
    • AbsurdParadox, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Nothin like some good SaaS penetration!
  • PecanHead, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7Is Alfalfa the spokeman for MySQL?
  • johnsouthworth, on 01/16/2008, -2/+32Why is everyone so worried. The code is STILL open source, and it always will be per the GPL. MySQL isn't going proprietary, SUN can't take away the already existing code. If enough people don't like the direction there will be a fork of the code and MySQL will live on.
    • warsql, on 01/16/2008, -3/+4True, but if nobody is paying for continued development, it will die.
  • MBX1, on 01/16/2008, -17/+12Why would Sun need MySQL?

    It works already flawlessly with hydrogen, helium, etc.
    • lzell, on 01/16/2008, -0/+27I give you props, that was the worst joke I have heard in a while
  • ravkass, on 01/16/2008, -2/+32As long as Sun keep it "open" AND "free" then I dont mind.

    But java is open and free so I'm not too worried.
  • FredFredrickson, on 01/16/2008, -7/+2Goddammit. If they take away the FREE from MySQL, I'm gonna go *****' ape *****.
    • skidooer, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4MySQL's interpretation of the GPL already made it non-free. But that aside, the GPL version will always be under the GPL, even if future releases aren't.
      • FredFredrickson, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Good to know... I hate going ape *****.
  • ozziek, on 01/16/2008, -2/+11Nice handshake. I bet Larry feels like busting moves and popping a cap in someones ass over this. word.
    • DteK, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1That would actually be classified as a "big ups" they are giving each other.
  • thailand1972, on 01/16/2008, -4/+19I thought it was *MY* SQL!!
    • gorndog, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4MySQL was named after co-founder Monty's daughter, "My" (pronounced "Mee").
      http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/history.htm ...
      • SuperMoses, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2// "My" (pronounced "Mee"). //

        Well that's just silly.
    • jordan314, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Wikipedia:
      "MySQL" is officially pronounced /maɪˌɛskjuːˈɛl/[29], not "My sequel" /maɪˈsiːkwəl/. This adheres to the official ANSI pronunciation; SEQUEL was an earlier IBM database language, a predecessor to the SQL language.[30] However, the company does not take issue with the pronunciation "My sequel" or other local variations.
      The "My" portion of the name may come from the name of Widenius's child, spelled "My" but pronounced in Swedish as mü /my/ (or approximately in English, "me"). However, MySQL's own developers are unsure if this is the case or if it is in fact a simple possessive.
    • tian2992, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Who's Sql?
  • frostbyt, on 01/16/2008, -9/+3Sun,

    Please start charging for MySQL and really mess it up.

    Frostbyt
    • mostman, on 01/16/2008, -2/+1You do know that there is already a commercial MySQL version. Right?
      • frostbyt, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I hope its better than the free one.
  • CuddyBuddy, on 01/16/2008, -5/+6This really is big news...wonder what this is gonna mean to LAMP folks such as myself (and millions others)
    • systemghost, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Official support, if you want it.
  • taiso, on 01/16/2008, -5/+2Maybe Sun is trying to beat up Oracle:

    http://www.news.com/2100-7344_3-6040197.html

    I especially like "We will be part of a larger company, but it will be called MySQL," Mickos said
    • digguserer, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0Hardly, Sun and Oracle have a close relationship and work closely together on a lot of stuff. MySQL needed extra protection which is part of why they chose to be bought out as opposed to IPO. Oracle was sniping them from a distance because they refused to let Oracle buy them. Being owned by Sun is probably the best protection from Oracle and will let the MySQL team work with the Innodb guys again now that Oracle bought them. This is pretty much a win-win all around. Sun gains, MySQL gains, and Oracle doesn't win or lose.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.