On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Yousif Masoud wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Philip Thompson <philthath...@gmail.com> > wrote: > On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 02:53 +0000, Joseph Masoud wrote: > >> > >> On 14 Dec 2009, at 22:01, Ashley Sheridan <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 15:59 -0600, Philip Thompson wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:51 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Lenin wrote: > >> >>>> You might also like this: > >> >>>> Come on Monty - Lukas Smith http://bit.ly/5lmwwD > >> >>> > >> >>> I've been watching some of this debate with interest, but I'll > >> >>> stay with a database that has none of the baggage that MySQL has > >> >>> always had, and IS currently replacing Oracle in many large sites :) > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Lester Caine - G8HFL > >> >> > >> >> Do share your db of interest... (and please don't say MSSQL). > >> >> > >> >> ~Philip > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > MSSQL has nearly brought me to tears and could have easily made me > >> > bald > >> > through hair pulling! > >> > > >> > I have to say, I do like MySQL, it's very flexible and fast, and being > >> > able to choose different storage engines for different tables in the > >> > same DB is brilliant! I really don't think there's anything to overly > >> > worry about from Oracle, as the two DB's have different audiences. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Ash > >> > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > >> > > >> > > >> Unfortunately, I do not share your optimism. I believe that Oracle > >> taking over MySQL would be a disaster of epic proportions. > >> > >> The "different audiences" theory has been bought up several times but > >> I haven't [to date] seen a sound justification for it. Oracle wants > >> everyone to use ... Oracle, I can't see how this "different audiences" > >> theory is going to make Oracle promote MySQL, perhaps someone can tell > >> me? > >> > >> I don't think the EU would be able to do anything about it. The > >> powerful companies almost always get what they want. > >> > >> I don't think Monty wouldn't be doing this unless he felt that > >> something [put mildly] bad is coming. > >> > >> What has happened, has happened. Trying to figure out who is to blame > >> for this mess is pointless. Ideally, It would be nice if Oracle took > >> its claws off MySQL and found another project to ruin. > >> > >> Note: I am *not* trying to spread FUD > > > > I've always been led to believe that you go with MySQL if you want speed, > > Oracle if you want data integrity. I know they both handle each one > > admirably, but Oracle is known more for guarding the data against mishaps > > and MySQL is known more for performance. I just think it may be a little > > early to be condemning Oracle yet, we should wait a little to at least see > > what stance they have on the whole thing. And before you ask, no I have no > > connection to Oracle, I'm an avid MySQL fan! > > > > Thanks, > > Ash > > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > > > Let's not forget one of the biggest decisions on why people choose MySQL over > Oracle/MSSQL.... it's way cheap. So cheap they're nearly giving it away. Oh > wait! They ARE giving it away. You start to piss people off whenever you take > away their working, free option. Also by being open source, you have plenty > of people that have the opportunity to work with it. The biggest reason I > haven't messed with Oracle (except in college for my db class) is that it's > expensive. Don't underestimate how cheap people are. There's your "different > audience." > > ~Philip > Your rant has been repeated so many times that it is becoming like a > corporate mantra. Some of the biggest software companies in the world use > open source software (which is free as in free beer). Are companies that use > Linux or FreeBSD as their server software "cheap"? For the remainder of my > argument, I will assume that your assertions only apply to database servers > (I'm not sure why you've chosen to single them out). > > It is disheartening that developers who decide to use open source software > are castigated as "cheap". Well in my case, I like to know what's under the > bonnet. That's just me, not a generalization and I emphasize that I am not > speaking on behalf of anyone. > > The tenets of a successful argument include a viable theory substantiated by > reliable and independently verifiable facts (none of which exist in your > rant). I will, nevertheless, try to make sense of your logic [in my own > mind[. > > I think you are making 2 assertions and then clumsily using them to prove > your claim. > > Assertion 1: It is inconvenient when a successful, widely adopted and very > convenient open source solution is taken away from the community (I am aware > that there are no explicit plans to kill the project, but this is my > perception based on how Oracle treated InnoDB). > > True. This is not only inconvenient, it is rude, immoral and very selfish. > Now, you tell me who's being "cheap"? Developers who implement MySQL (for > whatever reason) or Oracle by viciously going after businesses that are > happily using MySQL? > > Assertion 2: People who implement Open Source Software are tawdry. > This is absurd. Period. Cost is one of the more important factors when > choosing a software solution to implement, irrespective of company or project > size. Suggesting that developers who use Open Source Software are inferior > to their counterparts using propriety software is stunning. To convince me > of this you will need to conduct a thorough survey comparing the skill of > developers from both camps. It would be exceptionally difficult to produce > the criteria that will differentiate between the two and give reliable > results that prove your claim beyond reasonable doubt. > > You are claiming that the assertions above are enough to differentiate > between a typical MySQL and Oracle user. I am not convinced. Lack of > funding is a problem faced by every company in the world, it is therefore > logically flawed to use that as a differentiating factor between the > audiences. > > You have failed to demonstrate how your assertions would enable Oracle to > promote and nurture MySQL so that it becomes the better database solution. > If you can't see the conflict of interest then you are knowingly choosing to > ignore reality. > > With a heavy heart, I have to say that Oracle will undoubtedly get its way. > I am in no position to predict the consequences, however I do wish Monty > Widenius the best of luck in his bout with the proverbial "Big Fish".
Ooops! I forgot to conclude my last email with... "Tongue in cheek." ~Philip
