MySQL?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cubrewer Oct 07, 2005 2:40 PM EDT |
Where does this leave MySQL? Last time I looked at MySQL, it was only the InnoDB tables that supported transactions which was a feature that some people demanded before they took MySQL seriously. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 07, 2005 4:18 PM EDT |
Correct me if I am wrong, but recently reading the new features in MySQL I thought I read MySQL 5.0 now supports transactions. Check this: http://www.linuxpr.com/releases/8143.html where "XA Distributed Transactions", whatever those are seem to be listed. Also here is where I first saw transactions listed as being supported: http://www.sqlsummit.com/articles/MySQL5.htm If this stems only from an Innobase feature, you are correct that the next version of version 5.0 faces some major difficulties. Time to talk to Sybase? |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 07, 2005 6:36 PM EDT |
If true this should make us both a bit more confident about the survival of MySQL (swiped from slashdot):
Quoting: ... former Slashdot coder and current Director of Architecture for MySQL AB, comments: "InnoDB is GPL, so once again the beauty of the open source market is at play: there is no lock in, and we can continue to develop Innodb as we see fit. The code is out there and we plan on continuing to support it. The largest database vendor in the world just confirmed that the market for open source databases exists." In addition somewhere else I read that Oracle wanted to renew the Innobase contract next year with MySQL. Moreover, I read at another location that MySQL is working with another group to make the Berkley database support transactions. Hence, while Oracle certainly seems to have gained breathing room, it still has to worry about PostgreSQL being a challenge. |
| sbergman27 Oct 07, 2005 11:08 PM EDT |
They'd better hope that Oracle is willing to renew their proprietary license. Note that Oracle goes out of its way to state in its press release: --- "InnoDB is not a standalone database product: it is distributed as a part of the MySQL database. InnoDB's contractual relationship with MySQL comes up for renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate an extension of that relationship." --- If Oracle decided, out of their committment to open source software of course, to license Innodb exclusively under the GPL, agreeing with MySQL AB that the LGPL has too many loopholes to be really Free, MySQL AB's business model would be FUBARed. The GPL version would be fine, as Innodb is already GPL'd, but all those proprietary MySQL licenses MySQL AB sells would be limited to the functional equivalent of MySQL 3. I wonder how that will affect the price of the license they "negotiate" this year? Be careful of the proprietary licenses you base your business upon. MySQL AB, of all companies, should have known that. I've long been uncomfortable with MySQL as a company. The recipe seems to be: Play the open-source side of the fence, but license your libraries under GPL rather than LGPL to protect your interests. Require joint copyright assignment from authors that you accept patches from. Obtain proprietary licenses on code you need to help try to catch up with other databases. Sell proprietary licenses to make your revenue. And make sure to promote half-truths and to make misleading statements about the GPL on the "Do I Need To Buy A License" page on your company's website in order to enhance revenue. I'm not saying that there is anything exactly *wrong* with any of the above (except for the misleading statements). A company has to have a viable business model. But does MySQL really seem like the ideal DBMS comany to have as the OSS DBMS poster child? And yes, I'm a thoroughly biased PostgreSQL fan. ;-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!