Thread: Is the shoe on the foot?
I used to kringe when PostgreSQL articles were posted on Slashdot. It seemed that so many liked to spread FUD about how slow PostgreSQL was. However it seems that MySQL is getting the FUD now and everyone seems to have forgotten about the PostgreSQL FUD. http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/04/16/2337224 -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
Richard Broersma wrote: >I used to kringe when PostgreSQL articles were posted on Slashdot. It >seemed that so many liked to spread FUD about how slow PostgreSQL was. > >However it seems that MySQL is getting the FUD now and everyone seems >to have forgotten about the PostgreSQL FUD. > >http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/04/16/2337224 > > > I'm not sure this qualifies as FUD. I mean, generally FUD implies that the problems are illegitimate- the classic example was the IBM salesman warning customers to beware of being locked into an open solution. This problem (the possibility/probability that Sun will close-source all or part of MySQL) is a legitimate concern. They're legally entitled to, and there is a financial argument in favor of them doing it (they need to better "leverage" their IP to help pay for the cost of buying the company). Personally, I think it'll backfire, and destroy MySQL's popularity (especially considering there is a free, fast, *superior* solution out there for people to switch to). Five years ago, when MySQL still had a significant performance advantage, maybe it'd have worked, but not now. But in any case, the possibility that Sun will do this is a real, legitimate concern, and thus not FUD, for MySQL users. Brian
"Brian Hurt" <bhurt@janestcapital.com> writes: > But in any case, the possibility that Sun will do this is a real, legitimate > concern, and thus not FUD, for MySQL users. The discussion isn't about the possibility. The discussion is predicated on a single entirely unfounded report claiming they *are*. In fact Sun has made repeated unambiguous declarations that they have no intention of doing so. They're releasing (albeit slowly) their crown jewels with Solaris as open source it's not especially credible that they're going to keep MySQL in the box at the same time and that's certainly not what they're currently doing. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Richard Broersma <richard.broersma@gmail.com> wrote: > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/04/16/2337224 A few other useful articles to read are: Talking about the OSS development model impacts: http://jcole.us/blog/archives/2008/04/14/just-announced-mysql-to-launch-new-features-only-in-mysql-enterprise/ Direct from Sun/MySQL, with some better details -- they're essentially not releasing source to plugins: http://www.theopenforce.com/2008/04/two-markets-in.html Matt Asay and his thoughts: http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9921505-16.html 451 group talking about the business model (and that not much changed about MySQL with this announcement): http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/04/17/mysqls-business-model-in-a-state-of-flux/ Slashdot may seem over-zealous, but there's a lot of good, balanced coverage out there. -- Selena Deckelmann United States PostgreSQL Association - http://www.postgresql.us PDXPUG - http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx Me - http://www.chesnok.com/daily
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:25:20 +0100 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > "Brian Hurt" <bhurt@janestcapital.com> writes: > > > But in any case, the possibility that Sun will do this is a real, > > legitimate concern, and thus not FUD, for MySQL users. > > The discussion isn't about the possibility. The discussion is > predicated on a single entirely unfounded report claiming they *are*. > In fact Sun has made repeated unambiguous declarations that they have > no intention of doing so. Sun MySQL is not close sourcing the core database product. They are releasing as close source plugins to the MySQL core product. These plugins will provide features such as different types of backup, encrypted etc... Further the API for said plugin capability is fully documented and anyone is able to take advantage of it. I had an after lunch drink with Marten Mickos yesterday. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
bhurt@janestcapital.com (Brian Hurt) writes: > Richard Broersma wrote: > >>I used to kringe when PostgreSQL articles were posted on Slashdot. It >>seemed that so many liked to spread FUD about how slow PostgreSQL was. >> >>However it seems that MySQL is getting the FUD now and everyone seems >>to have forgotten about the PostgreSQL FUD. >> >>http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/04/16/2337224 >> > I'm not sure this qualifies as FUD. I mean, generally FUD implies > that the problems are illegitimate- the classic example was the IBM > salesman warning customers to beware of being locked into an open > solution. This problem (the possibility/probability that Sun will > close-source all or part of MySQL) is a legitimate concern. They're > legally entitled to, and there is a financial argument in favor of > them doing it (they need to better "leverage" their IP to help pay for > the cost of buying the company). Personally, I think it'll backfire, > and destroy MySQL's popularity (especially considering there is a > free, fast, *superior* solution out there for people to switch to). > Five years ago, when MySQL still had a significant performance > advantage, maybe it'd have worked, but not now. But in any case, the > possibility that Sun will do this is a real, legitimate concern, and > thus not FUD, for MySQL users. It seems to me that there are two main reasons for this NOT to happen: 1. Those applications that were expressly designed for elder versions of MySQL[tm] could continue to function atop the "legacy" code that won't become unavailable. Thus, if "Community OurSQL" (the _necessary_ renaming of it, since the community doesn't own the trademark) emerged, even in the most primitive, not-particularly-maintained form, this would largely *eliminate* Sun's ability to charge anything for services relating to it. No benefit to Sun, for sure. 2. The *other* "branch" of things is the "modern, more functional" MySQL[tm], complete with stored functions, triggers, and such. Deploying atop this requires fairly substantial recoding of things, and, if Sun got overly "proprietary" about this, there would be little reason for would-be users NOT to consider widening their options to include PostgreSQL and Firebird. In effect, if Sun gets over-exuberant about changing things, that will make migrating to other options look attractive in comparison with staying. -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org") http://linuxfinances.info/info/linux.html I'M SORRY, LUSER, I CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT. WHY DON'T YOU LIE DOWN AND TAKE A STRESS PILL? MY NAME IS LM1. I WAS MADE AT THE LISP MACHINE FACTORY IN MASSACHUSETTS ON DECEMBER 12, 1992. MY TEACHER WAS MR. WINSTON. HE TAUGHT ME A PROGRAM. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IT? HERE IT IS: