On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Philip Thompson <philthath...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 02:53 +0000, Joseph Masoud wrote: > >> > >> On 14 Dec 2009, at 22:01, Ashley Sheridan <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 15:59 -0600, Philip Thompson wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:51 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Lenin wrote: > >> >>>> You might also like this: > >> >>>> Come on Monty - Lukas Smith http://bit.ly/5lmwwD > >> >>> > >> >>> I've been watching some of this debate with interest, but I'll > >> >>> stay with a database that has none of the baggage that MySQL has > >> >>> always had, and IS currently replacing Oracle in many large sites :) > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Lester Caine - G8HFL > >> >> > >> >> Do share your db of interest... (and please don't say MSSQL). > >> >> > >> >> ~Philip > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > MSSQL has nearly brought me to tears and could have easily made me > >> > bald > >> > through hair pulling! > >> > > >> > I have to say, I do like MySQL, it's very flexible and fast, and being > >> > able to choose different storage engines for different tables in the > >> > same DB is brilliant! I really don't think there's anything to overly > >> > worry about from Oracle, as the two DB's have different audiences. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Ash > >> > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > >> > > >> > > >> Unfortunately, I do not share your optimism. I believe that Oracle > >> taking over MySQL would be a disaster of epic proportions. > >> > >> The "different audiences" theory has been bought up several times but > >> I haven't [to date] seen a sound justification for it. Oracle wants > >> everyone to use ... Oracle, I can't see how this "different audiences" > >> theory is going to make Oracle promote MySQL, perhaps someone can tell > >> me? > >> > >> I don't think the EU would be able to do anything about it. The > >> powerful companies almost always get what they want. > >> > >> I don't think Monty wouldn't be doing this unless he felt that > >> something [put mildly] bad is coming. > >> > >> What has happened, has happened. Trying to figure out who is to blame > >> for this mess is pointless. Ideally, It would be nice if Oracle took > >> its claws off MySQL and found another project to ruin. > >> > >> Note: I am *not* trying to spread FUD > > > > I've always been led to believe that you go with MySQL if you want speed, > Oracle if you want data integrity. I know they both handle each one > admirably, but Oracle is known more for guarding the data against mishaps > and MySQL is known more for performance. I just think it may be a little > early to be condemning Oracle yet, we should wait a little to at least see > what stance they have on the whole thing. And before you ask, no I have no > connection to Oracle, I'm an avid MySQL fan! > > > > Thanks, > > Ash > > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > > > Let's not forget one of the biggest decisions on why people choose MySQL > over Oracle/MSSQL.... it's way cheap. So cheap they're nearly giving it > away. Oh wait! They ARE giving it away. You start to piss people off > whenever you take away their working, free option. Also by being open > source, you have plenty of people that have the opportunity to work with it. > The biggest reason I haven't messed with Oracle (except in college for my db > class) is that it's expensive. Don't underestimate how cheap people are. > There's your "different audience." > > ~Philip Your rant has been repeated so many times that it is becoming like a corporate mantra. Some of the biggest software companies in the world use open source software (which is free as in free beer). Are companies that use Linux or FreeBSD as their server software "cheap"? For the remainder of my argument, I will assume that your assertions only apply to database servers (I'm not sure why you've chosen to single them out). It is disheartening that developers who decide to use open source software are castigated as "cheap". Well in my case, I like to know what's under the bonnet. That's just me, not a generalization and I emphasize that I am not speaking on behalf of anyone. The tenets of a successful argument include a viable theory substantiated by reliable and independently verifiable facts (none of which exist in your rant). I will, nevertheless, try to make sense of your logic [in my own mind[. I think you are making 2 assertions and then clumsily using them to prove your claim. Assertion 1: It is inconvenient when a successful, widely adopted and very convenient open source solution is taken away from the community (I am aware that there are no explicit plans to kill the project, but this is my perception based on how Oracle treated InnoDB). True. This is not only inconvenient, it is rude, immoral and very selfish. Now, you tell me who's being "cheap"? Developers who implement MySQL (for whatever reason) or Oracle by viciously going after businesses that are happily using MySQL? Assertion 2: People who implement Open Source Software are tawdry. This is absurd. Period. Cost is one of the more important factors when choosing a software solution to implement, irrespective of company or project size. Suggesting that developers who use Open Source Software are inferior to their counterparts using propriety software is stunning. To convince me of this you will need to conduct a thorough survey comparing the skill of developers from both camps. It would be exceptionally difficult to produce the criteria that will differentiate between the two and give reliable results that prove your claim beyond reasonable doubt. You are claiming that the assertions above are enough to differentiate between a typical MySQL and Oracle user. I am not convinced. Lack of funding is a problem faced by every company in the world, it is therefore logically flawed to use that as a differentiating factor between the audiences. You have failed to demonstrate how your assertions would enable Oracle to promote and nurture MySQL so that it becomes the better database solution. If you can't see the conflict of interest then you are knowingly choosing to ignore reality. With a heavy heart, I have to say that Oracle will undoubtedly get its way. I am in no position to predict the consequences, however I do wish Monty Widenius the best of luck in his bout with the proverbial "Big Fish".
