|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] MySQL issues
|From owner-hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Sun Jan 3 20:36:10 2010
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id 812B156E9E; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:36:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id 6D46456F0C; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:36:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [18.104.22.168])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9B756E9E
for ; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:36:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from panix1.panix.com (panix1.panix.com [22.214.171.124])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851AF38E42
for ; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:33:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: by panix1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 20529)
id 6649E14B98; Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:33:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:33:54 -0500
From: Ruben Safir
Subject: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] MySQL issues
References: <20100101190841.GC559-at-panix.com> <20100101215450.GA21859-at-panix.com> <20100101215521.GA5063-at-panix.com> <4B40171A.8080300-at-gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 11:03:38PM -0500, Paul Robert Marino wrote:
> well the truth is there is no danger of a monopoly because Oracle is
> dieing in the data warehouse market and has been dead in the web market
> for years.
This doesn't sound like dieing and dead to me FWIW.
> Oracle cant afford to drop MySQL because its their chance to
> get back into the web market. In the data warehouse market databases
> like Green Plumb and Netezza both of which are base on the BSD licensed
> PostgreSQL code base have been dominating the market along with other
> PostgreSQL variants. the nice thing is that these companies have been
> contributing back to the PostgreSQL code base hence the rapid
> development of new versions over the last 7 years the latest one being
> version 8.4.2 released on 2009-12-14.
This doesn't sound like Oracle is losing much in market share, although
I will take a look at these other products, just for fun. I happen to
hate Postges. IMO, it is a PIA to use, and so is Oracle, for that
matter. The major thing that attects me to MYSQL is that is
unbelievably and in a common sense way, straight forward to understand,
set up and use. And Monty makes that happen by being always available
all the time and by making what I believe is correct design decisions.
> the funny thing is that these
> PostgreSQL variants cost more then the oracles closest to equivalent
> product but they are capable of performance rates that blow all of their
> competition out of the water. Oh incidentally the other database
> mantioned in the article EnterpriseDB is also a PostgreSQL variant.
> As far as Oracle's the argument to change the license that's nothing
> surprising. Oracle was of the opinion that they made GNU/Linux a viable
> platform when they ported all of their database products (Oracle,
> Sybase, and Informex) over and that the GPL community owed them; however
> the GPL community has always felt that Oracle has proffited off of GPL
> software but never given any thing back to it.
Two things, the idea of a conortium around a database product isn't new.
Sybase was developed in just such a fashion decades ago...and where is
Sybase these days. The Postgres database is developed under the BSD
license, and that has always been a problem, IMO, and that is exactly
what Monty currently wants with MYSQL.
As for Oracle, both Oracle and Sun have made a big error which as time
goes forward, hurts them measurably, which is that they haven't fully
commited to Free Software. There one foot in and one foot out
methodology has cost them huges sales and product development
possibilities. There dependencies on license sales is a long term dead
end for them, as it is of the record companies. As it is, in both
companies, support is the driving force of their profitability.
> Oracle has also felt that
> that the development of MySQL pushed them out of the web market and that
> the GPL community was biting the hand that fed them in the early days.
> further more there has been a lot of speculation that Oracle will do one
> of their old tricks, namely that after they change the license they will
> fork a proprietary version branded with the oracle name and let the free
> speech portion of the code die.
> On a side note the reason why Oracle lost the web market has nothing to
> do with price.
Uh... I disagree. Cost was an enourmous factor, as it was with SCO.
Who the hell was going to shell out a 100 grand to develope slashdot?
> The primary reason is that Oracle does not support the
> LIMIT or OFFSET SQL directives and use subqueries in their place which
> makes it highly inefficient for the type of dynamic partial reports that
> websites generate constantly (any time a result is split across multiple
> pages such as an online retailer product listing that show 25 per page).a
I agree that that is also a big issue...and not the only PIA thing
> On 1/2/2010 8:37 PM, Paul Charles Leddy wrote:
>> Ya, I am extremely divided.
>> This is a historic event in my mind. Especially with the split between
>> Monty/RMS vs Moglen/Groklaw.
>> Grand history. Take your time. You don't have to choose sides. None of
>> us may know enough. Ever.
>> And. I think it is a learning experience for me to see that a lot
>> comes down to where the money is, more than I thought. At least, that
>> is the counter claim on both parts.
>> I assume money is the root of all evil. That's besides the point, but
>> might be a good stand to take in the end.
>> One big question for me is about monopoly. One of the means of
>> maintaining the social system we have -- I am reading
>> "Turbo-Capitalism by Luttwak, btw, I don't make these things up mysqlf
>> -- is that no one should have an outright monopoly. That's agreed. We
>> need to at least keep up appearances. So, remind me, what was the
>> answer to the fact that Oracle will have a monopoly if they suck in
>> I am also skeptical -- if you are curious to know -- that MySQL's GPL
>> status can't save in via forking. It would be historic, right? Correct
>> that no other huge project has forked and survived?
>> Anyways, I think it would take a LOT of work, but Monty could do it,
>> if he wanted, and people would go w/ him. What am I missing here? The
>> large corporate perspective? Definitely. Enlighten me. Crazy?
>> Can anyone clarify the dual-license deal in a paragraph w/ less than
>> 10 sentences? I am still unsure on that measure.