Oracle does not have a great track record in this area. Think Java and
OpenOffice.
Also check this out:
http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2011/09/oracle-adding-close-source-extensions.html
On 1/11/12 3:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
Why support MySQL over postgresql when MySQL is tied to Oracle and its
potential licensing issues? Already Oracle is adding features that were
originally going to be in the release as for pay only. It would be much
better to go with a community owned dbms imho.
MySQL is GPL with an OSI-approved waiver for non GPL'ed but open source
projects, so I don't see an issue with our continued use of it.
To be honest, I don't care much, I'm just much more familiar with MySQL and
their management tools. If there were strong opposition on the grounds that
the proposal has MySQL in it then we could change it. The goal isn't to
eradicate support for Postgres, but to push the burden for that support onto
people who are willing to offer it, and limit the amount of testing we need to
do for each release.
(I think it's pretty unreasonable that we're not testing fully on both mysql and
postgres given that we're suggesting either could be used, so lets just say that
support for postgres is there but maintained by the community and not part of
our regular QA process. Otherwise I think we need to maintain QA platforms for
both mysql and postgres, which is a pain and not fruitful with the resources we
have.)
Chris
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
