On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 08:57:14PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 06:44:06PM +1000, KevinL wrote: > > #include <twocents.h> > > > > The usual complaints regarding MySQL surface on large projects: > > > > 1) No transaction support (fixed with innodb, but up until recently a > > problem) > > has the intellectual property dispute over that and the mysql trademark > been sorted out yet? last i heard, mysql and nusphere were still > fighting.
You're thinking of Gemini tables, not InnoDB tables. AFAIK, there has never been any controversy over InnoDB tables, which were developed by "Innobase Oy" <http://www.innodb.com>, not Progress Software / NuSphere. > > Craig, I reckon calling MySQL a toy now innodb exists and is fairly > > stable is a bit harsh - given transactions, it's a capable database. > > It often still gets _used_ as a toy, but that's not it's fault. > > it's not harsh at all - unless you count the truth as being harsh. > > it still gets used as a toy because it is a toy. Your PostgreSQL advocacy would be a lot more effective if you would drop the trollish attitude. MySQL is not a toy. It may be misrepresented as a real RDBMS, but that doesn't mean it is a toy. It's an extremely fast data-store with an SQL interface. There are useful uses for a fast data-store, for example (ob-debian-ISP), to hold a RADIUS authentication database. Think of it as comparble with LDAP or Berkeley/SleepyCat DB, but with a nice SQL interface. Calling it a "toy" when it isn't is not a whole lot different than the MySQL folks calling it an RDBMS. :) Of course, for applications that need an real RDBMS, PostgreSQL is a better choice. -- _ivan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
