MySQL Taking A Bad Turn?

By Daniel Miessler on September 4th, 2005: Tagged as Database | Technology

Slashdot is running a story about MySQL buddying up with SCO, and both the story itself and the /. comments are quite enlightening. I’ve always liked MySQL myself — or, to put it another way, I’ve never had a problem with it when using it for the few things I’ve used it for. But hearing about these potentially seed affiliations and less than desirable licensing options is not very comforting.

In addition, one fellow geek (Stankdog from binrev) — someone far more versed in database than I am — thinks Postgres is definitely is a dramatically superior database overall. Another buddy of mine points out that the main reason MySQL got so big is because of blogging. Every major blogging package I know of is based on it. As a result, Postgres is little more to most people than, “that other open-source database”.

The upshot is that it may be time for us geeks to start thinking about Postgres as a lot more than the “other” option. An anonymous coward on /. summed it up well:

“Even those who trust MySQL and Trolltech must realize that their GPL + proprietary licensing schemes lead to future lock-in, and should be avoided for that reason alone. If you are a MySQL user, and you care about the future of Open Source, you should be looking at alternatives, such as PostgreSQL.”

Viewing 3 Comments

Nerd 3 years ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Bad news, PostgreSQL have the same relationship.

What is the difference between the SCO-MySQL deal and the SCO-PostgreSQL/EnterpriseDB deal?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1846635,00...

They were both announced at the same time. They are both doing the same thing (providing certified binaries to run on SCO).

As usual, MySQL gets bad press and PostgreSQL gets ignored.

reply edit reblog flag

Tim 3 years ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

So does the product quality suck now?

Sometimes if a product is good, you may have to bend your way of thinking. The "That's Micro$loth/SCO/Hewlett Packard! IT SUCKS!" way of thinking is going out of style.

I've always been a fan of GNU/Linux, but I use Microsoft products all the time (Windows XP/200 at work and home, MS .NET for coding projects, MS Outlook for email at work) for one of two reasons: 1) it's the best product for the job, or 2) it's a professional tool we use in my department/place of work.

While unstable or horribly designed products should be avoided at all possible costs, we should learn to look at software for what it is, not what it stands for. A true geek wouldn't use a magnet on his hard drive because he didn't personally write a text editor or IDE.

reply edit reblog flag

Robert Treat 3 years ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

#1: The difference is that PostgreSQL "the project" has no such relationship with SCO. Unlike my$ql, where the community, code and company are all one and the same, EnterpriseDB is just one of many software companies who use PostgreSQL as the basis for thier own commercial software, and it is they who have made the deal with SCO. (A good collorary to this would be to say that BSD is now a partner of Microsoft, just becuase Apple has a partnered up with them, it just doesnt make sense). Now, say what you want about EnterpriseDB... they make commercial software and target commercial enteprises, and they are brand spankin new and need deals like these, unlike my$ql who certainly doesn't need a sco partnership to help with it's survival.

#2: I think this is wrong on two fronts. The first is that part of product quality is having the freedoms that open source attempts to secure for you. I try to avoid commercial software when I can specifically becuase of things like vendor lockin and overhead of $/time involved in license management, but this isn't a software issue. I try to avoid consumer products that have low up front costs in an effort to lock you into recurring costs from parts... like appliances that require proprietary battery packs or a toothbrush that requires special tooth paste. But even beyond that, now more than ever it is important for consumers to avoid companies that support ideas that they are against. Simple examples include avoiding make-up companies that support animal testing or maybe avoiding software companies that use monopolistic business practices :-) There is no sense in pumping money into companies that are activly working against consumers, and companies that partner up with them should be given a critical eye as well, so that if there is a comprable alternative you can switch to it.

reply edit reblog flag