Thread: Re: FW: [webmaster] Comparison to MySQL
sgannon@360commerce.com wrote: > Bruce, > Thanks for the reply. > I am looking for a some specific areas and applications where PostgreSQL > would be superior to MySQL. > The information I have from MySQL compares to what you said below but they > consider their application to much more capable than MS Access. > > Any information that you can provide would be helpful. I am trying to > create a brief write up that our prospects can use to help them decide > which database is right for their use. Can someone answer this question about PostgreSQL vs. MySQL. I saw a nice list recently but can't remember it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Folks, PLEASE run your response by the list before sending it to them. The MySQL vs. PostgreSQL issue is a hot topic and we really don't want to make a bad impression on people outside our community. Also, I think it benefits us more to focus on our features rather than MySQL's shortcomings. MySQL *is* the appropriate database for some things, and we owe it to potential users to give them a fair evaluation of when PostgreSQL is appropriate, and when MySQL is. The MySQL team now has the general policy of doing the same thing (they didn't always, I know, but things have changed), and we can hardly afford to be seen as less fair than them. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
In the last exciting episode, josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) wrote:
> PLEASE run your response by the list before sending it to them. The
> MySQL vs. PostgreSQL issue is a hot topic and we really don't want
> to make a bad impression on people outside our community.
... And it has historically been pretty common for there to be claims
made that were true for old versions of some system, but which have
been remedied in newer versions. That's often true whether the
comparison is between MySQL and PostgreSQL, or Linux and FreeBSD.
> The MySQL team now has the general policy of doing the same thing
> (they didn't always, I know, but things have changed), and we can
> hardly afford to be seen as less fair than them.
Or, to put things another way, just because scurrilous things have
been said in the past does not justify spreading mistruths now.
--
output = ("aa454" "@" "freenet.carleton.ca")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/x.html
Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough.
-- Larry Wall
On Monday 10 November 2003 23:32, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > PLEASE run your response by the list before sending it to them. The > MySQL vs. PostgreSQL issue is a hot topic and we really don't want to make > a bad impression on people outside our community. > > Also, I think it benefits us more to focus on our features rather than > MySQL's shortcomings. MySQL *is* the appropriate database for some things, > and we owe it to potential users to give them a fair evaluation of when > PostgreSQL is appropriate, and when MySQL is. > > The MySQL team now has the general policy of doing the same thing (they > didn't always, I know, but things have changed), and we can hardly afford > to be seen as less fair than them. OK, this was result of some efforts on advocacy, IIRC..:-) http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html Shridhar
Shridhar, > OK, this was result of some efforts on advocacy, IIRC..:-) > > http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html I'm confused. This is exactly an example of what I was suggesting that we don't want to do. Did you offer it in that sense, or some other way? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> I'm confused. This is exactly an example of what I was suggesting that we > don't want to do. Did you offer it in that sense, or some other way? I actually have always thought that the MySQL gotchas page was objective and well-researched. It's not an "argument" as such, just facts. Chris
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:17:23PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >I'm confused. This is exactly an example of what I was suggesting that > >we don't want to do. Did you offer it in that sense, or some other way? > > I actually have always thought that the MySQL gotchas page was objective > and well-researched. It's not an "argument" as such, just facts. I think the point is that it's not important if it is true or not, facts or not; we shouldn't be showing someone else's problems to whoever wants to know about Postgres. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car. (Carrie Snow)
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 06:28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:17:23PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >I'm confused. This is exactly an example of what I was suggesting that
> > >we don't want to do. Did you offer it in that sense, or some other way?
> >
> > I actually have always thought that the MySQL gotchas page was objective
> > and well-researched. It's not an "argument" as such, just facts.
>
> I think the point is that it's not important if it is true or not, facts
> or not; we shouldn't be showing someone else's problems to whoever wants
> to know about Postgres.
If they want to know about postgresql, then thats fine, but the reality is
that people will ask you why they should choose postgresql over mysql, and
one reason you might give is that postgresql is acid complient. as soon as
you say that, people will bust out with "mysql is acid complient, you guys
are just fudsters". You need something like the gotchas page to be able to
back that up...
Maybe we need to rephrase the information from the gotchas page? "One feature
of postgresql is that when you insert a null value on a column that has a
default, it inserts the null value, not the default column value"
i think a lot of people would think we have gone bonkers...
Honestly I would like to see gotchas type pages created for every database; if
someone asks me why they should choose postgresql i have that covered, but if
someone asks me why they might want to migrate from $ql server to postgresql,
that would be a lot tougher since i don't have to regulary deal with it. As
long as the information on these pages is well researched, correct,
documented, and responsive to being changed, I don't think it's uncalled for.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat writes: > Honestly I would like to see gotchas type pages created for every database; if > someone asks me why they should choose postgresql i have that covered, but if > someone asks me why they might want to migrate from $ql server to postgresql, > that would be a lot tougher since i don't have to regulary deal with it. I don't think a list of gotchas is a reason to choose anything. I can easily list gotchas of similar strength for PostgreSQL. What we would need in order to get anyone to convert are facts or observations along the better/faster/cheaper axes. Compared to MySQL, we do very well on all three. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:35:55 -0500 Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > If they want to know about postgresql, then thats fine, but the > reality is that people will ask you why they should choose postgresql > over mysql, and one reason you might give is that postgresql is acid > complient. as soon as you say that, people will bust out with "mysql > is acid complient, you guys are just fudsters". You need something > like the gotchas page to be able to back that up... > The trick there is to try to do that, but still sound professional and not come off as "NYAH NYAH! WE'RE BETTER! WOOOOOOO!". The unfortunate thing there is PG has an unfortunate reputation of this big slow piece of junk, so we need to have some of this comparison "nyah nyah we're better" data. This became clear during the presentation on PG I did at work. A lot of people were still thinking of PG as it was in 6.x, which wasn't superdiduper good. And a lot of people were shocked when I went over 'why not mysql' section. they had _no_ idea about some stuff (like ACID (un)compliancy).. probably because mysql doesn't inform you. It is a very fine line. -- Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com> http://www.jefftrout.com/ http://www.stuarthamm.net/
Josh Berkus wrote: > Shridhar, > >> OK, this was result of some efforts on advocacy, IIRC..:-) >> >> http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html > > I'm confused. This is exactly an example of what I was suggesting that we > don't want to do. Did you offer it in that sense, or some other way? > Me too, about this overly MySQL-friendly attitude. Don't get me wrong, I don't ask for unbiased bashing and such, but that gotchas page is a totally valid response as long as MySQL AB uses bad researched crap (read lies) to make PostgreSQL look bad or more incomplete than it is. Need an example? Just run their latest version of crashme. It tells PostgreSQL does not support circular foreign keys and has this evidence for it: > foreign_key_circular: > > DB > create schema crash_schema create table crash_q (a int primary key, b int, foreign key (b) references crash_q2(a))create table crash_q2(a int, b int, primary key(a), foreign key (b) references crash_q(a)) > execute error:ERROR: Relation "crash_q2" does not exist > DB > drop schema crash_schema cascade > execute error:ERROR: Schema "crash_schema" does not exist Considering how hard they test on all the other ALTER TABLE stuff, why is it that they give up so easy on this? Could it be that trying harder here would ultimately end up in "MySQL does not support DEFERRED"? And this test shows that we don't allow updates to referenced keys: > DB > create table crash_me1 (a int not null,primary key (a)) > OK > DB > create table crash_me2 (a int not null,foreign key (a) references crash_me1 (a)) > OK > DB > create index crash_me2_1 on crash_me2 (a) > OK > DB > insert into crash_me1 values (1) > OK > DB > insert into crash_me2 values (1) > OK > DB > update crash_me1 set a = 2 > execute error:ERROR: $1 referential integrity violation - key in crash_me1 still referenced from crash_me2 > DB > drop table crash_me2 > OK > DB > drop table crash_me1 > OK Yes, that is what the standard asks for. If you want to allow that, you have to specify "ON UPDATE {CASCADE|SET NULL}". People who can read (standards) have a clear advantage. The list goes on and on, it has been there in this form or worse for years. Come again Josh, what did change on the MySQL side? "He's mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf, a horse's health, a boy's love, or a whore's oath." William Shakespeare Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan, > The list goes on and on, it has been there in this form or worse for > years. Come again Josh, what did change on the MySQL side? Zak took the "PostgreSQL sucks" section out of the documentation, for one thing. And Zak and I spoke to several people togther at PHPCon; Zak had no problem referring people who wanted Oracle analogs to us, and I had no problem referring webmasters with no DBA support to Zak (or to the SQLite person, for that matter). Further, I'll point out that we've been solicited to contribute to the crashme script/test. We haven't because it's a bad test, but then we can't hold MySQL accountable for its faults. MySQL has been vicious and unfair in the past. But holding a grudge does NOT benefit our project, especially if it's in public. Or, to put it another way, let me tell you a story which I find parallel: ---------------------------------------------- In the 1999 San Francisco Mayorial election, the front-runners were incumbent Willie Brown and political hack Clint Reilly. Former associates, both of them spent over a million dollars and five months slinging mud at each other; no insult or insinuation was too vile for either campaign; 20-year-old compromising pictures and statements were dredged up, lawsuits were launched, and the "attack ads" were legion. Tom Ammiano, who was not on the ballot at all, launched a write-in campaign starting less than 20 days before the election. He came in first, a historical record in San Francisco. ---------------------------------------------- Is my point clear, here? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Robert, > Honestly I would like to see gotchas type pages created for every database; > if someone asks me why they should choose postgresql i have that covered, > but if someone asks me why they might want to migrate from $ql server to > postgresql, that would be a lot tougher since i don't have to regulary deal > with it. As long as the information on these pages is well researched, > correct, documented, and responsive to being changed, I don't think it's > uncalled for. But *all* this page is is backup to the statement "MySQL is not fully ACID compliant and has weak SQL Standard compliance." If the requester wants backup on that, THEN you show them the Gotchas page. But you DON'T send this page to them in response to the initial question "Why should I choose MySQL vs. PostgreSQL?". The Gotchas do NOT answer that question. We do need the page to enforce any statements about differences in ACID compliance between MySQL and PostgreSQL and should maintain it. But only if someone asks. For one thing, you're just challenging MySQL to come up with a similar page for PostgreSQL. And they have a half dozen full-time marketing staff who can devote their full energies to the task -- and gods know PostgreSQL has its faults too. A page listing the faults of MySQL on its own does not tell a member of the public why they should choose PostgreSQL, it tells them why they should choose Oracle. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > I'm confused. This is exactly an example of what I was suggesting that we > > don't want to do. Did you offer it in that sense, or some other way? > > I actually have always thought that the MySQL gotchas page was objective > and well-researched. It's not an "argument" as such, just facts. > > Chris > Agreed, Postgresql could use one as well. It's gotchas would run into the realm of forgotten vacuums, analyzes, foreign key deadlocks, et. al. Every database has warts, it's knowing where they are and how to avoid them that helps.
>>I actually have always thought that the MySQL gotchas page was objective >>and well-researched. It's not an "argument" as such, just facts. >> >> > >I think the point is that it's not important if it is true or not, facts >or not; we shouldn't be showing someone else's problems to whoever wants >to know about Postgres. > > > I disagree with the above. I believe we shouldn't say: MySQL sucks because.... But to say: MySQL does it this way: PostgreSQL does it this way: I think you could even go so far as to say: MySQL allows the entry of invalid timestamps such as $value. Those are just facts. There is nothing wrong with displaying the facts about a product in comparison to another product. That is why all those marketing guys love those comparison charts that get put all over websites. Sincerely, Joshua Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
Josh Berkus wrote: > ---------------------------------------------- > In the 1999 San Francisco Mayorial election, the front-runners were incumbent > Willie Brown and political hack Clint Reilly. Former associates, both of > them spent over a million dollars and five months slinging mud at each other; > no insult or insinuation was too vile for either campaign; 20-year-old > compromising pictures and statements were dredged up, lawsuits were launched, > and the "attack ads" were legion. > > Tom Ammiano, who was not on the ballot at all, launched a write-in campaign > starting less than 20 days before the election. He came in first, a > historical record in San Francisco. > ---------------------------------------------- > > Is my point clear, here? You mean Interbase will be the winner? ;-P Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan, > You mean Interbase will be the winner? ;-P Be nice for them, wouldn't it? Firebird could certainly use some PR help. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
People:
So, let me start this on what I see as the "right foot":
PostgreSQL 7.4 Pros:
-- Extensible Architecture: create your own types, aggregates, functions,
operators, libraries.
-- 100% Open Source: contributions are not controlled by any single company,
so your suggestions and patches are as good as anyone's. Further, you have a
choice of numerous support vendors rather than being confined to one company.
-- BSD-licensed: may be used for commercial applications without fees.
-- Fully ACID-compliant: rigorous compliance with SQL Standard definitions
of data integrity, constraints, and keys; Multi-Version Concurrency Control
(MVCC) ensures transaction integrity.
-- Industry-leading Reliability: Write Ahead Log system and hot backup give
extraordinary protection against data corruption in the event of system
failures. Only the highest-end proprietary database systems offer anything
comparable.
-- Database Programming: Support for functions and procedures in 11 or more
programming languages. Support for triggers, constraints, and Rules-based
query rewriting.
-- ANSI SQL Compliance: Has one of the highest levels of SQL standard
compliance in the industry, including support for Schema, complex Views, SQL
Standard system catalog views.
-- Resonsive Community: Mailing lists offer peer-to-peer assistance from
major PostgreSQL contributors and advanced DBAs, often described as "better
than commercial support."
-- Scalability: the MVCC system and other parts of our architecture make
PostgreSQL scale very well across hundreds of concurrent read/write users.
-- Durability: The PostgreSQL project is 16 years old, with years more
experience than most comparable databases, commercial or OSS. PostgreSQL has
already survived the death of several supporting companies and will be around
for a long time to come.
PostgreSQL 7.4 Cons:
-- Ramp-up Time: As with other Enterprise databases, PostgreSQL DBAs are
expected to have a significant knowledge of the database system and SQL, more
than MySQL DBAs but not quite as much as Oracle DBAs.
-- No Windows Port: We do not yet have a Windows-native port of PostgreSQL.
One is in development.
-- High I/O Demands: As part of PostgreSQL's scalability and reliability,
the database makes significant demands on your server's I/O system, sometimes
making it unsutable for embedded or multi-purpose machines.
MySQL 4 Pros:
-- Extremely Easy to Use: MySQL was designed with the novice in mind, so
database administration and query issues are simplified to make it an
"install and go" database.
-- Many OSS Apps: many web apps designed to use MySQL are available and
ready to be downloaded without alteration.
MySQL 4 Cons:
-- Few SQL Features: MySQL does not currently have procedure or function
support, no schema, does not support many types of subselects, and
transaction support is very new with some reported problems and exceptions.
-- Not ACID Compliant: Does not fullfill standard ACID defintitions, due to
numerous weaknesses in constraints, data typing and transaction isolation.
See http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html for more information.
-- Poor SQL Standard Support: in efforts to simplify SQL queries, MySQL
violates many parts of the SQL standard. This can make porting applications
to or from other SQL databases difficult.
-- Dual License: due to MySQL's GPL license, you must purchase a license
from MySQL AB for many commercial applications.
-- Single-Company Project: the MySQL Project is owned and controlled by a
single company, MySQL AB. This means that the project lives or dies with
that company, which is currently venture-capital funded.
-- Questionable Reliability: Lack of open-source hot backup tools and
automated database recovery utilities make MySQL very vulnerable to system
failures and hardware problems.
--
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
Quoth JanWieck@Yahoo.com (Jan Wieck): > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> ---------------------------------------------- >> In the 1999 San Francisco Mayorial election, the front-runners were >> incumbent Willie Brown and political hack Clint Reilly. Former >> associates, both of them spent over a million dollars and five >> months slinging mud at each other; no insult or insinuation was too >> vile for either campaign; 20-year-old compromising pictures and >> statements were dredged up, lawsuits were launched, and the "attack >> ads" were legion. >> Tom Ammiano, who was not on the ballot at all, launched a write-in >> campaign starting less than 20 days before the election. He came >> in first, a historical record in San Francisco. >> ---------------------------------------------- >> Is my point clear, here? > > You mean Interbase will be the winner? ;-P If people were to decide that, based on the badinage, both the MySQL people and the PostgreSQL people were a bunch of jerks, Firebird might very well come out the "winner." Both 'sides' have been known to point to Firebird as a 'second choice' if their respective system was somehow unacceptable... -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "cbbrowne.com") http://cbbrowne.com/info/ "...while I know many people who emphatically believe in reincarnation, I have never met or read one who could satisfactorily explain population growth." -- Spider Robinson
>MySQL 4 Cons: > -- Few SQL Features: MySQL does not currently have procedure or function >support, no schema, does not support many types of subselects, and >transaction support is very new with some reported problems and exceptions. > -- Not ACID Compliant: Does not fullfill standard ACID defintitions, due to >numerous weaknesses in constraints, data typing and transaction isolation. >See http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html for more information. > > Personally I think we should have the info on a postgresql site. > -- Dual License: due to MySQL's GPL license, you must purchase a license >from MySQL AB for many commercial applications. > > This isn't accurate. It would be more accurate to say "for closed source applications". > -- Single-Company Project: the MySQL Project is owned and controlled by a >single company, MySQL AB. This means that the project lives or dies with >that company, which is currently venture-capital funded. > > This is also inaccurate as MySQL is GPL so the project would live on. > -- Questionable Reliability: Lack of open-source hot backup tools and >automated database recovery utilities make MySQL very vulnerable to system >failures and hardware problems. > > The term Questionable Reliability is a little flammatory... just Reliability would probably suffice. The description afterwords pretty much makes it questionable. > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > -- Single-Company Project: the MySQL Project is owned and controlled by a > >single company, MySQL AB. This means that the project lives or dies with > >that company, which is currently venture-capital funded. > > > > > This is also inaccurate as MySQL is GPL so the project would live on. They don't have a development community so that would have to be formed if the company folds, and as we can see from Firebird/SapDB, that isn't trivial. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Chris, > If people were to decide that, based on the badinage, both the MySQL > people and the PostgreSQL people were a bunch of jerks, Firebird might > very well come out the "winner." > > Both 'sides' have been known to point to Firebird as a 'second choice' > if their respective system was somehow unacceptable... Jan wasn't serious about Firebird. The "third parties" in this whole issue are Oracle, Microsoft & IBM (DB2). Particulary Oracle; in the last year Larry has devoted a lot of ink to the idea that "Open Source projects can make a good operating system, but an enterprise database is far too complex for any real OSS implementation." (see the Linux Magazine interview with him) It's FUD he's been spreading as part of the Oracle+RedHat campaign to protect Oracle's market share from us and MySQL at the same time as Oracle migrates its customers to Linux. If we grab a bunch of headlines through flamewars with MySQL, that just enforces Larry's propaganda that OSS databases aren't serious. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> -- Single-Company Project: the MySQL Project is owned and controlled by a >>>single company, MySQL AB. This means that the project lives or dies with >>>that company, which is currently venture-capital funded. >>> >>> > >>This is also inaccurate as MySQL is GPL so the project would live on. > > They don't have a development community so that would have to be formed > if the company folds, and as we can see from Firebird/SapDB, that isn't > trivial. True, but that doesn't take away from Joshua's point at all. He is accurate that MySQL is GPL, and it would live on. Their interested install base is large enough to establish a new developer community if the MySQL company went belly up too. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift
Hmmm ....
> True, but that doesn't take away from Joshua's point at all. He is
> accurate that MySQL is GPL, and it would live on. Their interested
> install base is large enough to establish a new developer community if
> the MySQL company went belly up too.
SO it would be more relevant to say that "it's a single-company project, which
can and has introduced feature and licensing changes without consideration
for the greater community." ?
--
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Hmmm .... > >>True, but that doesn't take away from Joshua's point at all. He is >>accurate that MySQL is GPL, and it would live on. Their interested >>install base is large enough to establish a new developer community if >>the MySQL company went belly up too. > > SO it would be more relevant to say that "it's a single-company project, which > can and has introduced feature and licensing changes without consideration > for the greater community." ? Ouch. But yep, I'd say that's accurate too. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift
Justin, > Ouch. > > But yep, I'd say that's accurate too. Well, we should consider the wording on this. However, I want to make the point somewhere in a general comparison that MySQL and PostgreSQL are not organizationally equal; PostgreSQL is a classic OSS project, and MySQL is a private company which uses OSS as its distribution model. From our perspective, our model is superior, and we want evaluators to understand that there's a difference. Certainly MySQL AB will be presenting *their* perspective on the issue, as they've had a "FAQ" in the past about why having a one-company-dictatorship is an advantage (quality control, presumably). It's also a very serious concern considering MySQL's current business situation. It's entirely possible that within 2 years the MySQL trademark, original copyright, and main developers could end up being owned by some large tech corporation (e.g. SAP, etc.). Certainly anyone could take the GPL code and run, but the track record of such forks has been very poor (Firebird, SAP DB, etc.) -- both due to the lack of developers and the loss of the trademark. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Hmmm .... > > > True, but that doesn't take away from Joshua's point at all. He is > > accurate that MySQL is GPL, and it would live on. Their interested > > install base is large enough to establish a new developer community if > > the MySQL company went belly up too. > > SO it would be more relevant to say that "it's a single-company project, which > can and has introduced feature and licensing changes without consideration > for the greater community." ? Yes, they do dual-licensing, and can license future versions however they want, including totally non-GPL. They just changed the client license from LGPL to GPL. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Josh Berkus wrote: > Chris, > > > If people were to decide that, based on the badinage, both the MySQL > > people and the PostgreSQL people were a bunch of jerks, Firebird might > > very well come out the "winner." > > > > Both 'sides' have been known to point to Firebird as a 'second choice' > > if their respective system was somehow unacceptable... > > Jan wasn't serious about Firebird. > > The "third parties" in this whole issue are Oracle, Microsoft & IBM (DB2). > > Particulary Oracle; in the last year Larry has devoted a lot of ink to the > idea that "Open Source projects can make a good operating system, but an > enterprise database is far too complex for any real OSS implementation." > (see the Linux Magazine interview with him) It's FUD he's been spreading as > part of the Oracle+RedHat campaign to protect Oracle's market share from us > and MySQL at the same time as Oracle migrates its customers to Linux. Clearly he can't believe you can open source develop an OS but not a database --- I am wondering what they are thinking over at Oracle. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce, > Clearly he can't believe you can open source develop an OS but not a > database --- I am wondering what they are thinking over at Oracle. "On any issue, where you stand is dependant on where you sit." -- paraphrasing Alexis DeTocqueville -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> Clearly he can't believe you can open source develop an OS but not a > database --- I am wondering what they are thinking over at Oracle. Of course he does. To Oracle, the OS is just a second BIOS which has nothing to do with memory or disk management.
Justin Clift wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Hmmm .... >> >>>True, but that doesn't take away from Joshua's point at all. He is >>>accurate that MySQL is GPL, and it would live on. Their interested >>>install base is large enough to establish a new developer community if >>>the MySQL company went belly up too. >> >> SO it would be more relevant to say that "it's a single-company project, which >> can and has introduced feature and licensing changes without consideration >> for the greater community." ? > > Ouch. > > But yep, I'd say that's accurate too. Agreed, very big ouch ... they do with the code, the license and everything else whatever they think is best for their revenue. The reason why this had worked so far is that they successfully prevented the building of any open source developer community. A database today is not a product, it is a tool. Customers don't buy a database, they buy a solution, and the database used inside of that solution might require a license, they don't care ... the decision makers are the guys with the ties and (if they aren't overpaid) they look for the cost of ownership of the complete solution, not the pieces. The fine difference between databases and the other tools like build environment, sourcecontrol, compiler and so on is, that the most important part of the database is the runtime component - the server. And that is the very piece where MySQL tries to keep the strong grip. They love to tell everyone that they have a huge user community and that they have many contributors - and they will deny a hundred times that there is a difference between implementing a stored procedure system and a little fix in the JDBC driver. Yet they will insist that you sign over the copyright for the former, or it cannot be added to the distribution, sorry. And they can just make that decision because they have total control over the source code repository. I think this little point about the copyrights and who gets the bucks for the licenses was the source for the MySQL/NuSphere (aka PeerDirect) divorce ... but I might have misunderstood something there. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Justin Clift wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>>> -- Single-Company Project: the MySQL Project is owned and controlled by a >>>>single company, MySQL AB. This means that the project lives or dies with >>>>that company, which is currently venture-capital funded. >>>> >>>> >> >>>This is also inaccurate as MySQL is GPL so the project would live on. >> >> They don't have a development community so that would have to be formed >> if the company folds, and as we can see from Firebird/SapDB, that isn't >> trivial. > > True, but that doesn't take away from Joshua's point at all. He is > accurate that MySQL is GPL, and it would live on. Their interested > install base is large enough to establish a new developer community if > the MySQL company went belly up too. Unfortunately that is not true. Just because something is GPL does not mean it will live on. The point that they "require" everyone to sign over the copyright of every code contribution (they call it "donation") in order to add it to the source tree prevents serious contributors from doing so. There has been not a single, substantial code contribution to the server up to this day. Think about it; I fixed the rule system, I created PL/Tcl, PL/pgSQL, NUMERIC, had my fingers in the referential integrity stuff, TOAST and a bunch of other things of lesser importance like the stat views and other crap ... if I would start my own business now and would use PostgreSQL "professional" (read commercial), I would have to pay for it? I don't think so! That's why I would not think for a second to contribute to such a project, and that is why they do not get "that many" contributions to the core engine in the first place. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Josh Berkus wrote: > Chris, > >> If people were to decide that, based on the badinage, both the MySQL >> people and the PostgreSQL people were a bunch of jerks, Firebird might >> very well come out the "winner." >> >> Both 'sides' have been known to point to Firebird as a 'second choice' >> if their respective system was somehow unacceptable... > > Jan wasn't serious about Firebird. Confirmative! > > The "third parties" in this whole issue are Oracle, Microsoft & IBM (DB2). The point is, that people who attend the CeBit wearing a tie, talk to people who present there wearing a tie. Computer shows in the US only look different on first glance, the business rules are the same. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Rod Taylor wrote: >> Clearly he can't believe you can open source develop an OS but not a >> database --- I am wondering what they are thinking over at Oracle. > > Of course he does. To Oracle, the OS is just a second BIOS which has > nothing to do with memory or disk management. And whenever I say "let's make PostgreSQL run optimal on a dedicated server first", I get shot down! Maybe I should work for Oracle ... just kidding ;-p Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
> Just because something is GPL does not mean it will live on. The point > that they "require" everyone to sign over the copyright of every code > contribution (they call it "donation") in order to add it to the source > tree prevents serious contributors from doing so. There has been not a > single, substantial code contribution to the server up to this day. Do they require you to sign over the copyright even if you do not wish to include your code in their distribution but intend to simply fork it?
Rod Taylor wrote: >> Just because something is GPL does not mean it will live on. The point >> that they "require" everyone to sign over the copyright of every code >> contribution (they call it "donation") in order to add it to the source >> tree prevents serious contributors from doing so. There has been not a >> single, substantial code contribution to the server up to this day. > > Do they require you to sign over the copyright even if you do not wish > to include your code in their distribution but intend to simply fork it? You are free to fork at any time, it's GPL. But you have to do it on your own server in the first place. They are running the repository and the mailing lists and everything else by now, and they will just not apply your changes without sign over, period. So one has to set up a repository, some mailing lists and the whole infrastructure for what? You need to listen to the MySQL community once, and how they worship their gods of SQL for all their goodness and wisdom. You will be flamed to death for your blasphemy! Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
>Do they require you to sign over the copyright even if you do not wish >to include your code in their distribution but intend to simply fork it? > > No that would be illegal. J -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:46, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >Do they require you to sign over the copyright even if you do not wish > >to include your code in their distribution but intend to simply fork it? > > > > > No that would be illegal. I was unsure whether they used a modified GPL which could have such a restriction.
JanWieck@Yahoo.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> A database today is not a product, it is a tool. Customers don't buy
> a database, they buy a solution, and the database used inside of
> that solution might require a license, they don't care ... the
> decision makers are the guys with the ties and (if they aren't
> overpaid) they look for the cost of ownership of the complete
> solution, not the pieces.
It's interesting to observe that such various companies as Oracle and
MySQL AB all seem to think that it is a reasonable idea for operating
systems [which they don't produce] should be "available for free" for
them to (depend on|take advantage of).
But in contrast, it apparently seems "inconceivable" that databases
would be a similar sort of 'infrastructure' that would be treated in
similar fashion. No, no, databases are very special applications that
require the "careful guidance" of these companies, otherwise, well, I
think the _main_ 'disaster' would involve the loss of licensing
fees...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "libertyrms.info")
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>>Do they require you to sign over the copyright even if you do not wish
>>to include your code in their distribution but intend to simply fork it?
>>
>>
> No that would be illegal.
Hmm? In what way would that be "illegal"?
I can't think of how they could compel such an assignment against your
will.
--
"cbbrowne","@","libertyrms.info"
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
pg@rbt.ca (Rod Taylor) writes:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:46, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> >Do they require you to sign over the copyright even if you do not wish
>> >to include your code in their distribution but intend to simply fork it?
>> >
>> No that would be illegal.
>
> I was unsure whether they used a modified GPL which could have such a
> restriction.
But the _practical_ restriction is the important one.
If MySQL AB were to include others' contributions _without_ an
assignment of copyright, then that would prevent inclusion of such
contributions in the 'proprietary fork.'
That would outright *destroy* their business model based on charging
licensing fees on the 'commercially licensed' version.
--
output = reverse("ofni.smrytrebil" "@" "enworbbc")
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
>>No that would be illegal. >> >> > >Hmm? In what way would that be "illegal"? > >I can't think of how they could compel such an assignment against your >will. > > Exactly, so if they tried, or represented the fact that they could... it would be illegal. -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:46:23AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >Do they require you to sign over the copyright even if you do not wish
> >to include your code in their distribution but intend to simply fork it?
> >
> >
> No that would be illegal.
Well, not exactly. There is certainly no law against it. It would
just be inconsistent with the GPL half of their dual license. Since
they have the trademark on MySQL, though, they could prevent you from
redistributing your new, forked version as MySQL.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom Ammiano, who was not on the ballot at all, launched a write-in campaign > starting less than 20 days before the election. He came in first, a > historical record in San Francisco. Off-topic but he came in 2nd. :) Otherwise Tom would be mayor now and not Willie Brown. The record was for a write-in candidate forcing a runoff election.
William, > Off-topic but he came in 2nd. :) Otherwise Tom would be mayor now and > not Willie Brown. The record was for a write-in candidate forcing a > runoff election. Really? Though he came in ahead of Brown in the first ballot and lost the runoff after Brown spent $5 million. Anyway, doesn't change the metaphor. Are you in the SF Bay Area? If so, we have a PGSQL users group here. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote:
>>>No that would be illegal.
>>>
>>
>>Hmm? In what way would that be "illegal"?
>>
>>I can't think of how they could compel such an assignment against your
>>will.
>>
> Exactly, so if they tried, or represented the fact that they
> could... it would be illegal.
No, if they represented that they could, that would be _dishonest_.
Which isn't quite the same thing as "illegal."
In places organized as a "theocracy" or some other form of "religious
state," things considered 'immoral' are enacted into law as being
'illegal,' such that 'immoral' and 'illegal' have a tendancy to be
synonymous. In places where there has been a "separation of church
and state," lots of things likely to be regarded as immoral are
definitely _not illegal_. Dishonesty may be immoral, but it's not
necessarily illegal.
Digression aside, if they took such a case to court, they would be
expected to be rebuffed by the court for having brought action with no
basis in law, which would presumably lead to ... ridicule.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com';
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sgml.html
It is better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass.
Christopher Browne wrote:
> jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote:
>>>>No that would be illegal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm? In what way would that be "illegal"?
>>>
>>>I can't think of how they could compel such an assignment against your
>>>will.
>>>
>> Exactly, so if they tried, or represented the fact that they
>> could... it would be illegal.
>
> No, if they represented that they could, that would be _dishonest_.
> Which isn't quite the same thing as "illegal."
>
> In places organized as a "theocracy" or some other form of "religious
> state," things considered 'immoral' are enacted into law as being
> 'illegal,' such that 'immoral' and 'illegal' have a tendancy to be
> synonymous. In places where there has been a "separation of church
> and state," lots of things likely to be regarded as immoral are
> definitely _not illegal_. Dishonesty may be immoral, but it's not
> necessarily illegal.
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight
for a black cat that isn't there.
- Robert A. Heinlein
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Josh Berkus wrote: > William, > > >>Off-topic but he came in 2nd. :) Otherwise Tom would be mayor now and >>not Willie Brown. The record was for a write-in candidate forcing a >>runoff election. > > > Really? Though he came in ahead of Brown in the first ballot and lost the > runoff after Brown spent $5 million. http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/06/6ammiano.html In the section: A Volunteer Army "Ammiano took second place, with 25 percent of the vote. His campaign spent $25,000." > Anyway, doesn't change the metaphor. > > Are you in the SF Bay Area? If so, we have a PGSQL users group here. I'm on the list yes.
Hi everybody Sent out the press release to the biggest German php-sites. Did someone send the english release to php.net and zend.com? Regards Conni
Conni, > Sent out the press release to the biggest German php-sites. > > Did someone send the english release to php.net and zend.com? No, looks like the address I have at php.net bounced. You're welcome to re-submit; or I'll try if you've already gone to bed. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco