<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MySQL future in doubt after Oracle acquisition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/</link>
	<description>on DB2 Express-C, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle XE, SQLServer Express and other free databases</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:46:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Landis</title>
		<link>http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-5308</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Landis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:50:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedb2.com/?p=383#comment-5308</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think brand recognition carries so much weight. I&#039;ve used MySQL for years and affirm its speed, ease of install, and strong cross-platform support, if it occasionally needs a table rebuild.  Many queries are easier to write for MySQL but PostgreSQL certainly offers easy to swallow licensing, robustness, data integrity, and many advanced capabilities.  db_STRESS benchmarks applied in http://planet.mysql.com/?tag_search=5844 indicate MySQL-5.4 outperforming PostgreSQL-8.3.7 by 13.5 to 7 in read-only and 7.5 to 6.5 in read-write mode.  I think the trade-off is MySQL performance, ease of use, and vast community versus more favorable PG licensing, data integrity, advanced features, and an open source future.

In the short term, PG suffers from a Berkeley UNIX world view.  Building client PG applications for Win32 is hampered by a need for the source tree that still has missing pieces (e.g. pg_config.exe), that even with source often refuse to compile.  A substantially smaller PG community means fewer source examples on forums and blogs that could address externalities like these.  If the PG team cleaned up some long ignored Win32 client development issues, narrowed the performance gap, and adopted some of MySQL&#039;s SQL extensions (e.g. IF [NOT] EXISTS...), PG might accelerate its adoption rate, perhaps becoming the heir apparent to MySQL’s free database dominance – at least until Larry Ellison figures out how to take PG out of the picture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think brand recognition carries so much weight. I&#8217;ve used MySQL for years and affirm its speed, ease of install, and strong cross-platform support, if it occasionally needs a table rebuild.  Many queries are easier to write for MySQL but PostgreSQL certainly offers easy to swallow licensing, robustness, data integrity, and many advanced capabilities.  db_STRESS benchmarks applied in <a href="http://planet.mysql.com/?tag_search=5844" rel="nofollow">http://planet.mysql.com/?tag_search=5844</a> indicate MySQL-5.4 outperforming PostgreSQL-8.3.7 by 13.5 to 7 in read-only and 7.5 to 6.5 in read-write mode.  I think the trade-off is MySQL performance, ease of use, and vast community versus more favorable PG licensing, data integrity, advanced features, and an open source future.</p>
<p>In the short term, PG suffers from a Berkeley UNIX world view.  Building client PG applications for Win32 is hampered by a need for the source tree that still has missing pieces (e.g. pg_config.exe), that even with source often refuse to compile.  A substantially smaller PG community means fewer source examples on forums and blogs that could address externalities like these.  If the PG team cleaned up some long ignored Win32 client development issues, narrowed the performance gap, and adopted some of MySQL&#8217;s SQL extensions (e.g. IF [NOT] EXISTS&#8230;), PG might accelerate its adoption rate, perhaps becoming the heir apparent to MySQL’s free database dominance – at least until Larry Ellison figures out how to take PG out of the picture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oracle kills Virtual Iron. Is MySQL next? &#124; FreeDB2.com</title>
		<link>http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-3560</link>
		<dc:creator>Oracle kills Virtual Iron. Is MySQL next? &#124; FreeDB2.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedb2.com/?p=383#comment-3560</guid>
		<description>[...] blogged about my opinions about what the future holds for MySQL customers in light of Oracle&#8217;s acquisition of SUN and MySQL. I predicted, contrary to the opinions of some of the industry pundits, that MySQL within [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] blogged about my opinions about what the future holds for MySQL customers in light of Oracle&#8217;s acquisition of SUN and MySQL. I predicted, contrary to the opinions of some of the industry pundits, that MySQL within [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Farmer</title>
		<link>http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-2835</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Farmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 16:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedb2.com/?p=383#comment-2835</guid>
		<description>MySQL&#039;s real strength is its brand.   If you go back about eight years ago it had a technology &amp; cost edge over its competition - postgresql was too slow and didn&#039;t have a native windows install.  The *vast* number of defects and non-standard features were accepted by users as a small price to pay for saving many thousands of dollars.

But that was then.  Now Postgresql is far better positioned than MySQL in everything except branding.    Postgresql is faster for many non-trivial apps, runs on as many platforms, is more free (no Byzantine licensing), has no worries about its future, and very importantly - does not have a buggy product.

MySQL should be in trouble from postgresql - even if Oracle or Sun didn&#039;t buy them.  But branding can trump technology, so who knows?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MySQL&#8217;s real strength is its brand.   If you go back about eight years ago it had a technology &amp; cost edge over its competition &#8211; postgresql was too slow and didn&#8217;t have a native windows install.  The *vast* number of defects and non-standard features were accepted by users as a small price to pay for saving many thousands of dollars.</p>
<p>But that was then.  Now Postgresql is far better positioned than MySQL in everything except branding.    Postgresql is faster for many non-trivial apps, runs on as many platforms, is more free (no Byzantine licensing), has no worries about its future, and very importantly &#8211; does not have a buggy product.</p>
<p>MySQL should be in trouble from postgresql &#8211; even if Oracle or Sun didn&#8217;t buy them.  But branding can trump technology, so who knows?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MySQL escapes Oracle's grasp &#124; FreeDB2.com</title>
		<link>http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-2674</link>
		<dc:creator>MySQL escapes Oracle's grasp &#124; FreeDB2.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 05:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedb2.com/?p=383#comment-2674</guid>
		<description>[...] 15th, 2009 &#183; No Comments    Last week I blogged about uncertain future of MySQL in Oracle&#8217;s hands. At that time a number of people pinged me to say that they thought that I [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 15th, 2009 &middot; No Comments    Last week I blogged about uncertain future of MySQL in Oracle&#8217;s hands. At that time a number of people pinged me to say that they thought that I [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lightway</title>
		<link>http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-2625</link>
		<dc:creator>Lightway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 01:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedb2.com/?p=383#comment-2625</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately, I think Leon is right. MySQL doesn&#039;t really fit in with Oracle&#039;s strategy of going after the high end of the market. Oracle wants you to spend alot of money on their products, and doesn&#039;t really seem to be much interested in the lower end. Any effort at this level is pretty much for PR, and that&#039;s about it.

I have never been much of a fan of MySQL, but I did appreciate the pressure they applied to Oracle, to remove them from the low end of the webspace, and this in turn relieved the startup costs for many web entrepreneurs. I am guessing this blog is running on Wordpress, and Wordpress typically uses a MySQL backend. So many web apps have seamlessly integrated into MySQL, that it has been a breeze to administer.

Oracle has a history of gutting competitors, and not through technical superiority. For example, in the late 1990s, they raided the talent at Informix and snatched away a core group of Informix&#039;s finest. Informix, in my opinion, was the finest database around, more stable, scalable, and way easier to use than Oracle. Informix responded with a lawsuit, which nearly killed the company. Luckily, IBM picked them up and have been moving some of the nicer usability features into DB2. 

onstat = best command line db tool ever. Want to upgrade? Just rename the Informix directory and install Informix into the new one. DONE.

I like Postgres alot, because of it&#039;s unbreakability, and the high polish of its engineering, and wonder why it has not picked up as much traction in the commercial space.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, I think Leon is right. MySQL doesn&#8217;t really fit in with Oracle&#8217;s strategy of going after the high end of the market. Oracle wants you to spend alot of money on their products, and doesn&#8217;t really seem to be much interested in the lower end. Any effort at this level is pretty much for PR, and that&#8217;s about it.</p>
<p>I have never been much of a fan of MySQL, but I did appreciate the pressure they applied to Oracle, to remove them from the low end of the webspace, and this in turn relieved the startup costs for many web entrepreneurs. I am guessing this blog is running on WordPress, and WordPress typically uses a MySQL backend. So many web apps have seamlessly integrated into MySQL, that it has been a breeze to administer.</p>
<p>Oracle has a history of gutting competitors, and not through technical superiority. For example, in the late 1990s, they raided the talent at Informix and snatched away a core group of Informix&#8217;s finest. Informix, in my opinion, was the finest database around, more stable, scalable, and way easier to use than Oracle. Informix responded with a lawsuit, which nearly killed the company. Luckily, IBM picked them up and have been moving some of the nicer usability features into DB2. </p>
<p>onstat = best command line db tool ever. Want to upgrade? Just rename the Informix directory and install Informix into the new one. DONE.</p>
<p>I like Postgres alot, because of it&#8217;s unbreakability, and the high polish of its engineering, and wonder why it has not picked up as much traction in the commercial space.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leon</title>
		<link>http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-2318</link>
		<dc:creator>Leon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 13:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedb2.com/?p=383#comment-2318</guid>
		<description>I am certain that MySQL will survive in one form or another. I know that Monty, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.percona.com/percona-lab.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Percona&lt;/a&gt;, Brian Aker and others will do their best to keep it going. The problem is that all of these efforts are very fragmented on their own and they fragment MySQL. Googles, LinkedIns and Facebooks of the world are OK with that but for the rest of the world, I just don&#039;t think MySQL will continue to play the role it ones played.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am certain that MySQL will survive in one form or another. I know that Monty, <a href="http://www.percona.com/percona-lab.html" rel="nofollow">Percona</a>, Brian Aker and others will do their best to keep it going. The problem is that all of these efforts are very fragmented on their own and they fragment MySQL. Googles, LinkedIns and Facebooks of the world are OK with that but for the rest of the world, I just don&#8217;t think MySQL will continue to play the role it ones played.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vlhka Pica</title>
		<link>http://freedb2.com/2009/05/05/mysql-future-in-doubt-after-oracle-acquisition/comment-page-1/#comment-2313</link>
		<dc:creator>Vlhka Pica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 10:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedb2.com/?p=383#comment-2313</guid>
		<description>Dont worry. Companies depending on mysql will not let it fall.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dont worry. Companies depending on mysql will not let it fall.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
