Oracle makes move to kill open source MySQL
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Seriously, I never cared about that company as long as it was just selling expensive (but supposedly feature rich?) software to the enterprise, but it seems the alternatives to Oracle's java and MySQL need some more support, market- and mindshare.
Larry is the new Bill. I blame Jonathan.
It is still open and available for download at http://opensolaris.org. It just isn't being supported by Oracle anymore since they are focused on Oracle Linux.
FreeBSD is doing a great job of catching up with Solaris innovations. I love those guys! And maybe we can ride for a few more years on Sun's largesse. But who will push things forward?
Yeah, I know about openjdk. But they don't provide official binaries for all I know (and certainly not for Windows, linking back to the Oracle distribution).
If it is an anti-competitive move, it reminds me of the recent move by RedHat, who have started shipping their new kernels as one big source tarball, without patches, which undoubtedly pissed off both Oracle and the CentOS folks.
How do you explain removing access to the source repository then? Or the fact that the documentation is not free to redistribute?
I can easily explain it, because it never happened. Access to the MySQL source repository on launchpad is available for anyone to browse. Oracle is occasionally lazy about updating it, but they've never removed access AFAIK.
Or the fact that the documentation is not free to redistribute?
The documentation has never been free to redistribute, it was that way under Monty, it was that way under Sun, and it remains that way under Oracle.
it is very different from this case. that it's a simple mistake is not very probable. see the java sec update controversy a few days ago.
The big difference is that MariaDB comes with the Aria storage engine, which is a crash safe alternative to MyISAM.
That said, as an embedded DB I would use SQLite.
I've never really felt that it was actually easier to use than a client/server DBMS. I can imagine that it's good for some kinds of embedded applications, but for normal web applications I don't see any improvement in usability. Juggling files is not any easier than setting up a connection.
And there were always annoyances associated with the simplicity. All those "complex features" in a real DBMS turn out to be useful sooner than you think (and I don't mean "once in production" I mean while still in development). Even the simplest applications can usually benefit from good support for dates and times.
I think SQLite just drew the line in the wrong place for most applications (although it may serve a niche quite well). Oversimplification requires the developer to reinvent, which results in a much more complex system overall (or one that at least requires more work to develop and maintain). Key/value stores have similar problems for general-purpose application development.
2. There are several really nice front-ends to SQlite, along with the phpmyadmin like app for SQlite. Like MySQL you'll never have to use the command line (for most operations).
3. SQLite is now included with just about every scripting language (except MS' langs - where it's just a matter of downloading the app and an ODBC driver).
4. "Because it requires no configuration and stores information in ordinary disk files, SQLite is a popular choice as the database to back small to medium-sized websites." - sqlite.com
Simple websites. Would I run this site on SQLite? Of course not. Any shopping site with a million users? No. But a personal blog? Yes. A company website used for marketing and information (and maybe a few Contact US pages)? Yes.
There are millions of sites where using MySQl is over-kill. But everyone uses it because, like PHP, it's always there.
5. SQlite uses SQL. Very few commands aren't available.. like you can't write to a View. But I think that's true in MySQl too. There's a small list on sqlite.com. It even has transactions.
Simply put, if you don't require writing to the db from multiple sources (and lets face it, 80% of the sites out there don't.); running your app or site on sqlite is fine.
That's exactly the problem. If it's easier, then maybe I'll use it. If it's just as easy, but does less, I have no reason to bother using it, for two reasons:
1. There is non-zero risk that I will need one of the other features.
2. Even if I don't, why would I want to spend time learning something if it isn't better (at something) than what I already know how to use?
I haven't seen any compelling reason to use SQLite outside of the mobile or embedded space.
"over-kill"
What do you mean by that, and why is it bad?
What do you mean by that, and why is it bad?"
It's not. I'm just pointing out that there are alternatives to MySQL. And for small sites/apps that don't require something like Postgres; that can be SQLite.
Frankly I miss the days when an easy to install and use database was available to the masses. Remember Paradox, dBase and Foxpro? Sure all those database where powerful (xBase, for example) and used to develop complex applications. But they were also used for simple applications.
I would love to see something equivalent to those online. Oh wait, there is; SQLite.
No offense but people who make statements like this clearly don't know much about the current state of databases. PostgreSQL is pretty bad in many areas compared to the newer databases e.g. ease of clustering and sharding, developer friendliness, JSON support, tool support etc.
It's great as a replacement for a typical RDBMS but if you're working on a new startup project I would see no reason to use it.
Also all of your arguments are "push to the application layer". Well my point is that with most of the newer databases you don't have to reimplement the wheel.
Which RDBMS do you have in mind ?
The fact is that just like one programming language doesn't satisfy all use cases. Neither does one database. So maybe PostgreSQL 'supporters' should stop trying to claim it is perfect for everyone.
>MongoDB
wat
For OSS projects that require a RDBMS, PostgreSQL is a good choice. I instinctively choose it over MySQL years ago and have been pleased.
Oracle is, above everything else, about monetization. If they can't make money out of it, they will either change it so they can make money out of it, or they'll kill it.
Sun was generally good at open-source (though not perfect by a long shot, OpenSolaris was not exactly a slam dunk and the CDDL was rather weird — and explicitly and expressedly made incompatible with the GPL), but they were rather bad at monetizing. Oracle's the exact opposite.
It also realizes that most of its monetization comes from professional services, and saw that 1) software subscription revenues were declining across the board, proprietary or Open Source, and 2) Open Source created (to IBM's lawyer's eyes) a possible threat to its patent holdings (a considerable revenue stream / business value themselves) which was best addressed by keeping core development outside the organization (Red Hat, Novell/Suse, Kernel.org, Apache.org).
Oracle's direction (as was Sun's somewhat schizoid approach to Free Software / Open Source before as noted by its supporting the Caldera/SCO Group attacks against Linux) are making it a non-credible source. Hence the forking of projects (Lumina, LibreOffice, OpenJDK, MariaDB, etc.) it had inherited.
But really I think the only thing saving Netbeans' butt is Java.
Q: Why hasn't Oracle ruined Virtualbox yet?
A: Because they're going in alphabetical order.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4400797 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4397124
Let Oracle shoot off all their feet.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/sql-commands....
Don't get me wrong, it's a great database and I know a company that use nothing else and won't switch if you paid them, ( They are use .Net ).
Most people saying "Time to switch from MySQL" (probably) aren't paying for MySQL. From a business perspective, those people are a net loss anyway. Getting them to switch to something else may actually save Oracle a little money.
To do so is not too smart if your business relies on the DB to function.
Postgres is an extremely high quality piece of software.
They were proposing an alternative when I want a fork of what I already use.
I cut a bunch of apps (and their large databases) over from MySQL to Postgres several years ago. It was tedious, but I've never had cause to regret it in any way.
When MySQL became Oracle I was very relieved to not have to think about the implications.
I don't build large apps, although for many-read-few-write-type sites SQLite isn't so bad.
And also the docs are much more readable to me than for MySQL.
These open technologies make the world turn.