MySQL provides support if you want/need it. I don't see any difference except that the MySQL support is probably better.
I can't speak for vendor developed applications running on MySQL, but my answer is that you make this a requirement of vendors. They will respond if you make this a requirement. You might even make it a requirement that they run on a variety of databases, because deployment strategies can change. You should require vendors to create applications that are built in a modular fashion so that they don't have excessive database dependencies that can't be managed easily. If you simply roll-over when the vendor tells you something, I think you probably deserve what you get. Some push-back on the vendor and a better understanding of requirements and costs is needed to be an intelligent buyer in this market place. This doesn't mean you need to be a developer. The issue of "short-comings" of MySQL have been well addressed by others. My experience is that it is really rock-solid. We have used it for months on end without any problems of any kind. We have also transferred a functioning MySQL database wholesale from Linux to Windows in binary and had it up in a few minutes on Windows with no modifications of any kind. Dave On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 16:34, Daniel L. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 15:17, David Forslund wrote: > > What does the table have to do with open source, since SQL Server isn't > > open source. There are a lot of non-open source DB solutions. Why > > compare to that one? > > OK, to answer your question directly, here's the cry for help that came > with the comparison table, from one of our Mayo System IT department > heads, who is struggling against the Microsoft tide in his rare spare > moments: > ___________________________________________________________ > > > I have been pressing my technical staff to look at alternatives to MS SQL > > because of licensing issues. While it may not be the best comparison, they > > put together the attached comparison of MS/SQL versus MySQL. As you will > > see, their comparison shows a lot of short comings on the open source side. > > Additionally, they keep beating me over the head with the logic that: > > > > 1. We are not a development shop > > 2. We only buy vendor developed applications > > 3. There are few vendor-developed applications that run on an open source > > database like My SQL. > > > > I believe there is truth to all they present but I also know that they've > > got a built-in bias toward Microsoft products which leaves me suspecting > > that they've left something out of the comparison. What am I missing? > ___________________________________________________________ > > I apologize for throwing a lighted match into gasoline here, but I'd > like to be able to pass back to this gentleman some trenchant facts that > he can use to change the color of his minions' thinking. (The leader > can't take his troops where they won't go.) > > Thanks very much for all the responses you've provided. > > Dan Johnson
