|
|
| MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye |
 |
|
Monday, October 10 2005 @ 03:58 PM EDT
|
MySQL's CEO, Marten Mickos, finally answers critics of its new partnership with SCO:
"We thought about the deal for a long time and we thought it was the right thing to do," he said. "We want to serve customers irrespective of their platform." Business reasons were a driver for the deal, but Mr Mickos also appears to be following the advice of The Art of War author, Sun Tzu: keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
"In a partnership you exchange thoughts," he said. "If you exchange thoughts hopefully the other side will listen to you. We understand people get upset, but it doesn't help to just close them out and despise them, it doesn't help at all. We don't want to be the judge. We want to be the doctor. If we can provide the cure, great. . . . "They used to say the GPL was unconstitutional, maybe with working with us they have proved that it is not unconstitutional," said Mr Mickos.
Um. Sputter. Huh? MySQL will accomplish that? Well, what do you know? And here I thought IBM carried that burden of establishing the constitutionality of the GPL, that enormous financial burden, with a lot of help from the worldwide FOSS community, and some hints from Groklaw's GPL Summer School. And P.S., we accomplished it already, without any help from MySQL.
They may have thought about the deal for a long time, but they don't seem to have followed the case very closely, or they'd know SCO dropped that claim a long time ago. And may I ask what is wrong about judging bad behavior? I don't think MySQL knows SCO like we do, or they'd never imagine SCO will reform. I'm sorry, but that excuse doesn't pass my laugh test. This MySQL statement is profoundly offensive. Here's the translation inside my head: "We wanted to make some money, honey. And we don't sell Linux, so what do we care?" Had they just said they did it for business reasons, I'd probably have shrugged it off, actually. Not that I like anyone helping SCO attack Linux, directly or indirectly. I didn't like Microsoft and Sun paying them millions, because it helped them pay Boies Schiller to attack Linux via litigation against IBM and Novell and DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone. Look at all the financial damage they have done, by forcing these companies to defend themselves from the unwarranted attacks. Shall we justify that by saying it is important to support customers? To spin it as MySQL has, that they are on some kind of educational ninja mission, is hypocritical. It also means to me that MySQL isn't really grokking what FOSS is about, or what SCO hoped to do to Linux and the GPL. That is important to know about them, don't you think? The good news is that education can happen to anyone, and evidently the community reaction is helping MySQL to become better educated itself. The fact that they felt they had to issue this statement tells me they are aware that the community is not happy with them. At first, they issued no statements and wouldn't answer any questions. I believe they thought that if they could avoid saying anything, it would all die down. This statement tells me that it has not died down. People judge a business by more than just their code, you know. We have to feel we can trust you to want to use your products. Microsoft is feeling that truth more and more, despite its monopoly muscle, and surely SCO has discovered this simple, human truth. MySQL has marked itself now, given itself a black eye, and I feel sure they will continue to feel the effects, unfortunately. Businessmen are very smart, generally speaking, but one thing few of them understand: when it comes to FOSS, if you upset the community by violating its values, it will affect your business. It's not that boycotts are organized or anything simple like that. It's that decisions on what software a business should use are generally profoundly influenced by the geeks working there, and if they don't like your behavior, or your product, when the PHB asks them what to buy, they don't recommend your company. Caldera learned that lesson, not that they connected the dots. That company absolutely never connects any obvious dots about GNU/Linux, not in any of its iterations. Caldera wasn't able to make a profitable business from GNU/Linux, but Red Hat was. What is the difference? Trust. Red Hat has a good record, overall, of respecting the GPL and FOSS values. If that changes, they'll do the dodo bird dance too. Caldera always tried to make the GPL stretch a little too far for comfort, and the community reacted accordingly. It was not organized. It was a natural reaction to Caldera not behaving in ways the community thinks are important. IBM grasps that, the need to respect the ethics and values of the culture that comes with GNU/Linux and particularly with the GPL, and they have behaved appropriately. That is the secret to their support from the community, which has translated into serious money made from GNU/Linux, and it's something any business can tap into. Or out of.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
If any here please.
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Art of War - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Griffin3 on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
And try to make your links clickable, like the example in red below the box you
are typing in to make this response you are thinking of, right this very moment,
as you type.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
Sorry to rain on your parade and interrupt your rant, PJ.
But AFAIK you accomplished nothing that matters already.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I don't think you've paid attention. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: cc0028 on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- Yay for trolls - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- You have a very easy option... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: midav on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: stend on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:31 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Wanderer on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 08:34 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: greybeard on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:55 PM EDT
- If you "have no love for Linux"... - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 02:20 AM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 07:56 AM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 09:06 AM EDT
- spoken like a true marketeer... "blinkered" and all :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- Say what? - Authored by: pscottdv on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:55 AM EDT
- don't be blinkered - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 03:42 AM EDT
- Why, he is just a barber - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 10:34 AM EDT
- Trolls live under bridges. - Authored by: meat straw on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- Hey, Quit attacking the poor guy. - Authored by: Mecha on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- BZZZZZZZT! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Its the gestank of SCO. - Authored by: waltish on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:22 PM EDT
- Please don't feed the trolls. - Authored by: sbungay on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- Don't feed the trolls - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- I'm surprised you expect anything better - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 04:04 AM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 05:09 AM EDT
- This is a sad day - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 09:56 AM EDT
- Huh?? - Authored by: Wanderer on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- MySQL Speaks & Gives Itself a Black Eye - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 04:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
It's really very simple: having anything to do with SCO is harmful to one's
reputation.
Entering into a business arrangement with them, which might
help them to do more damage to the Linux community by increasing SCO's financial
resources, is a very bad thing to do.
Is this complicated? What
part of the above does the MySQL company not understand? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mecha on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
That was all he needed to say. Obviously he has something to learn from SCO, as
opposed to SCO learning something from him. That being "How to spin."
SCO isn't any good, but they are much better than MySQL was.
It seemed to me that he was trying to rationalize why he partnered with SCO to
the Open Source community (who feel a little let down by MySQL's business
decision). However, he should of just left it at what I quoted in the title.
That is a more FOSS answer than "Trying to mentor SCO" is. FOSS is
about freedom for the end users. By making MySQL available for SCO's customers,
we can provide for them the freedom of using our software like those who run it
on Linux and Windows have enjoyed.
However, he didn't say that. He must have spent too much time in the presence
of SCO that he picked up McBritis (a.k.a. Foot in Mouth disease - mmm Toe Jam).
I didn't realize that it can be caught if you sign a contract with SCO. But
there is evidence of this sort of thing happening to known SCO cohorts as well.
So I caution everyone to take care when you are in the presence of the top execs
of SCO as you may become infected as well.
---
************************************************************
I am not clever enough to write a good signature. So this will have to do.
*****************[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
they might find out someday SCO(if it survives) that SCO can stake a claim to
MySQL. Either that or the technology in MySQL will show up in a future SCO
system[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cc0028 on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
| Having spent two days last week at LinuxWorld Expo trying, amongst other things,
to decide whether to use MySQL or PostgresQL for a one year project I'm just
starting on, I remained undecided.
Now I've made my mind
up.
Peter
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mecha on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
I am a Red Hat guy. I started on it, and I am routinely using it. I like other
distro's too, I just have my preference.
When Red Hat stopped after Red Hat Linux 9 came out, people were not very happy.
So they quickly learned it was a mistake and spun off the Fedora Project. You
can get their Enterprise versions in Source RPMS, just not in binary/iso format.
Now they do somewhat support the project. But it is the MySQL business model.
Main project with a community supported beta. Sun has done this with
OpenOffice/StarOffice. They just did it again with Solaris. Novell has
recently done this with OpenSuSE (That name is just wrong. Like a double
negative!!!).
---
************************************************************
I am not clever enough to write a good signature. So this will have to do.
*****************[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kevin on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
Wow. I'm just speechless.
I account myself fortunate that I'd already,
for several
of my projects, started a migration away from MySQL and onto
SQLite3. I had
started it not because of any
political issue with MySQL,
but rather for the simplicity that SQLite gives me.
It is
much easier to install and administer than MySQL, because
it's all in the
client program; it depends on the native
file system for authorization and
concurrency control. It's
had transaction support right along, unlike MySQL
where it
was an ugly afterthought. It's wonderfully fast and light,
yet scales
to multi-gigabyte databases with ease (the first thing I built with it had a
four-CD installer owing to the
volume of data that users needed).
Its
inventor won one of Tim O'Reilly's coveted
Open Source
Awards back in April
for being "able to get Python, Perl & PHP people to all agree on something.
No small feat."
(O'Reilly's citation fails to mention Tcl, where SQLite
was born
and where it still lives quite comfortably. The
excellent multilanguage support
is another plus.)
SQLite's chief disadvantages are that its support
for
integrity constraints (both referential and data-type) is
not really there,
and it doesn't scale well to networked
usage of a common database (as opposed to
access from a
single application server). Neither of these has been
a
significant hurdle for my uses.
Its "license" is the very model of
simplicity: it's
dedicated explicitly to the public
domain. As I understand
it, explicit statements
to that effect have been obtained from all
contributors.
I feel that I owe the readers of this comment disclosure
of
my interests. I have no connection with the SQLite
project other than as a
satisfied user, but SQLite's
inventor and I collaborate regularly as members of
the
Tcl Core Team.
---
73 de
ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
"Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships
with."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
He seems to sue everyone he comes into contact with eventually. A little pariah
anyone?
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
If MySQL AB had simply said that this decision was about business reasons, I
would accept it. If they said it was about money, I would accept it. I
wouldn't like it, but I would accept it. But no, they try to go on this false
high road and claim that they are doing this for the customers. Could someone
please enlighten me as to why they need to partner with SCO for this? Do SCO's
customers not know how to navigate their web browsers to www.mysql.com? Do they
not know how to click on the "Support" link? ANYONE can get MySQL
support. It's not like they're going to turn down support contracts. They'd
probably ask you what OS you're running, but they wouldn't say "I'm sorry,
that's SCO UNIX, we won't help you".
Following their logic, they better partner with Red Hat, Debian, and Slackware
next. I mean, come on, don't they want to support users of those operating
systems? What about Microsoft, will they partner with them? They release MySQL
for Windows; don't they want to support it?
Everyone knows this was about money. It's offensive to our collective
intelligence for them to try and claim otherwise. Then again, what do I expect
from a company whose pricing structure has now become a yearly subscription?
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
If you go to their website and look at their Commercial License, they state the
following (and have for years):
"If you include the MySQL server with an application that is not licensed
under the GPL or GPL-compatible license, you need a commercial license for the
MySQL server."
So if I write a non-GPL Pac-Man game and want to include MySQL on the disk, I
need a commercial license? Yeah, right. This is exactly what gnu.org calls
"mere aggregation," and you can certainly use the GPL code in this
case.
They have other claims in those bullets, too, that are plain wrong--the GPL can
fit into those scenarios just fine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
People talk about freedom, the GPL, and the ability to do whatever they want
(within the license terms), but then get upset when someone uses this freedom.
Sounds unduly harsh to me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
I wrote to MySQL shortly after they announced their association with SCO, to
advise them of the customers they were losing as a result of their decision.
Here is the reply I received:
<quote>
Thanks for your feedback, it is valuable for us to hear from our users and
developers supporting MySQL.
MySQL a cross-platform an OS-agnostic RDBMS, it has been possible to run MySQL
on the SCO platforms for a very long time. I understand (from market research
sources) that there are about 2 million active SCO-platform installations. A
cross-platform database can make it easier for users to move to another platform
if they choose to do so. For some users though, porting is a complex, expensive
and unreasonable task. They are caught in the middle of the whole SCO situation.
I am sure you will agree with me that these users deserve adequate information,
support and related services for their existing production environment.
Initiating lawsuits is a constitional right in the US and many other countries.
Indeed, many lawsuits we hear about can be regarded as frivolous or even
malicious. But it is for the courts to judge the legal merits of the cases
brought before them, and for lawmakers to amend the legal framework where deemed
necessary.
For instance in Australia (where I live), if someone makes a frivolous claim of
copyright infringement, they are liable for are significant damages. This is
built into the system, and does no require the unfortunately victim of the claim
to initiate civil counterclaims themselves. This safeguard of course means that
one would think twice about initiating frivolous claims, or without immediately
placing proof on the table.
Naturally, customers can always vote with their feet if they feel unhappy with
the ethical behaviour of any vendor, and that is a very powerful force. I would
however point to the case above, walking is not always an option for everyone,
particularly with legacy platforms. There is a reason that these users are still
using the platforms they do. These are not new deployments.
So for MySQL AB, the focus is on the users of MySQL on these platforms. We
believe that we can serve our users best in this way.
In addition to the above clarification of our reasoning and actions, our CEO
Marten Mickos has offered to talk with you directly and answer any further
questions you may have - this in particular because we appreciate that you feel
strongly about this matter, and there are many aspects to it.
</quote>
The reply came from Mysql's Arjen Lentz. I did not bother contacting Marten
Mickos. My company's policy has been to blacklist SCO, its customers, and
associates. MySQL software has been removed from all computers at my company.
We have been advising our clients to do the same.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jws on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
Besides associating with SCO, Techdirt has the following link indicating
that a company they should have bought or merged with is not in the hands of
Oracle. Sleeping at the switch about associating with the wrong "partners" may
not be their only problem.
Jim
techdirt article
20051010/000252
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
From the original press
release:
LINDON, Utah, Sept. 2, 2005 -- The SCO Group, Inc.
("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for
distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has
entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified,
commercial version of the popular MySQL database for SCO OpenServer 6, the
newest release of SCO's UNIX solutions platform. As part of the agreement, the
companies will work together on a range of joint marketing, sales, training,
business development and support programs that will benefit customers throughout
the Americas, Europe and Asia. Additionally, SCO will include a trial
subscription to the MySQL Network enterprise database service with each new copy
of SCO OpenServer -- and offer full MySQL Network subscriptions through its
reseller channel.
In short, they are making a certified package
for SCO that they can support for end-users; and SCO is reselling MySQL support.
All of which is almost certainly costing SCO money, not MySQL AB; for MySQL AB's
sake, I hope they got paid in advance. To date, they do not seem to have built
any binary distributions for SCO, so any users running on SCO would have to
build it themselves. This deal primarily benefits end-users, since they can buy
a version that they can reasonably expect to work, and have support if it does
not. Of course, being able to do this does indirectly benefit SCO, which is a
downside. BTW, the people who are saying "use PostgreSQL" aren't thinking
too clearly. Since PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed, there is absolutely nothing
preventing SCO from building their own certified package and reselling it as a
non-free-software product. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
"It also means to me that MySQL isn't really grokking what FOSS is
about"
I think you don't give MySQL enough credit. It's not that they don't understand
what FOSS means to the masses, it's about what FOSS means to MySQL AB. It's not
unusual that movements get coopted - just like at what the neocons or the
religious right did to the Republican party.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ewe2 on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
Ahhh this is not surprising from a company with a major VC capital injection
recently. It's likely they'll go the opposite route to TrollTech and make
themselves irrelevant to the FOSS world.
Now would be a good time for FOSS developers to make user-friendly frontends to
Postgresql so we can route around such damaged code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
It's a bit of a mystery why MySQL got so much buzz to it, when there is a much
better open source alternative. PostgreSQL is older, much more mature and fully
functioned, and non-commercial (unlike MySQL).
It may not be *quite* so easy to set up but it's still pretty simple, and
trivial compared with Oracle etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: star-dot-h on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
...and all that. I've said it before and will do so again :-), I believe the EFF
picked a "bad" cause when they took MySQL's case against Progress.
From what I can see reading about recent relaeses MySQL is still benefiting from
what they learnt during that relationship and sold the Progress guys a lame duck
in return.
---
Free software on every PC on every desk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
P.J., you of all people should know something about forgiveness and salvation.
Nobody is completely beyond hope (not even SCO). Partnering with SCO doesn't
change anything at all about MySQL's business (other than getting some needed
revenue). They are still the same company with the same product, available
under the same terms. Perhaps they have enhanced the marketability of SCO's
software offerings by offering their support. Big deal - it will not save SCO
or even slow down their demise.
I read what Marten Mickos said and I can't see anything wrong with it. If you
do, please offer specifics. "Guilt by association" is illegal under
our constitution (Freedom of Association). In my opinion, MySQL has done
nothing illegal or immoral.
JSL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why so harsh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 09:34 AM EDT
- Why so harsh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- Why so harsh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 06:34 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
I just don't get the problem with this. Sorry, but the GPL is about Freedom
with a capital F. That meens you are Free to do what you want, no? And so are
MySQL. They do dual-licensing, which no-one seems to mind either, and is
perfectly acceptable for other companies, notably TrolTech (the Qt widget
technology behind KDE). So why this double-standard just because MySQL are
selling stuff to SCO?
So what if MySQL starts a business relationship with SCO? That's MySQL's
business and none of mine, or yours.
I agree that MySQL's decision places it in danger of being sueued by SCO, based
on their previous behaviour and SCO's belief that "contracts are what you
use against people you have a relationship with". I wouldn't want to marry
SCO, but should I damn MySQL because they are open do doing business with them?
It's as silly as blaming Microsoft because terrorists use the Windows operating
system.
Hopefully this is just showing that PJ has bad days too.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
MySQL answered me when I emailed them about it, but I didn't like the answer
that they want MySQL to be OS independent. But MySQL teaming up with SCO lent
them an image of respectability they don't deserve and MySQL would not have lost
anything not working with SCO.
But they've lost on least one of our projects. We switched to PostGRESQL just
before we were ready to start constructing the database. We're also looking at
Firebird and one other. Some of my older stuff is already on MySQL and I don't
feel an overriding urge to switch out stable systems, but their conduct toward
SCO will stick in my mind when it's decision time on new projects.
Hopefully this incident will point out to the overworked geeks everywhere that
they have more clout than they realize inside and outside their company. Kind
of reminds me of Fight Club. We run your payroll, your accounting systems, your
email. We managed your CRM and web services. Do not **** with us.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 09:16 AM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: rwelty on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- PostGRESQL - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- heh - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- heh - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 09:43 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: philc on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
I really don't see a business case in partnering with SCO at this time.
1) SCO revenue is decreasing. SCO is making fewer sales. How much money can
MYSQL squeeze out of this?
2) SCO's new upgrade is not flying off the shelf. Few opportunities to sell the
certified product.
3) SCO has a problem in retaining existing customers and is not gaining new
customers. When a customer dumps SCO, will it also dump SCO's partners?
4) SCO is a dying company. How long do they have? How long if Novell gets its
injunction?
5) MYSQL will end up having to support what SCO sold after SCO is gone. They
will inheret the new owners. MYSQL will have to get in bed with the people that
buy the remains of SCO at bankrupcy.
6) MYSQL will have to spend money ramping up support on SCO. MYSQL will spend
money training their support people on SCO. Maybe even hire new people to do
this.
7) It will take a while to get a certified product. How much interest will there
be in the product by the time its ready. SCO may be near to death.
8) There is a guilt by association factor that has started to dirty MYSQL and
will continue to dirty them. Look at other responses for a hint of whats to come
for MYSQL in the PR space.
"Show me the money" Great quote. Works here. I don't see the money.
Grabbing a rocket that is headed to earth is not a good way to make your
fortune.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pugs on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
... with all of the "I like Groklaw/PJ when you do 'X', but when you do
'Y', I don't like Groklaw/PJ."
PJ, you must have hit a nerve.
Good job!
Pugs
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
MySQL's never been very community developed. They also switched their client
library licence to the GPL without a lot of people noticing (and yes, version 3
has this switch as well). So, probably 99% of MySQL users don't realize they
have obligations under the GPL now. At some point MySQL AB will say "Guess
what y'all, time to pay up!".
I'd recommend PostgreSQL. It's much, much more advanced, is community
developed, and addins like PostGIS that are GPL don't put obligations on the
code that uses it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
... giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Note that the aid and comfort might not by themselves be illegal, evil, or
anything else like that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
Hitting on a point made earlier by Mecha, we really shouldn't be concerned with
MySQL's reasoning for making this announcement. Granted, the CEO didn't seem to
articulate his point as delicately as he should have, but overall his point
seems to be reasonable (hint to CEO: get a corporate spokesperson with some of
that VC cash).
Ask yourself this, if you were a systems administrator
and were given the task of administering a legacy SCO UNIX box, wouldn't you
hope that someone, somewhere had the code and/or capability to ease the
adminstration of that legacy box? How happy would it make the boss knowing you
could squeeze another year out of that old SCO box/doorstop? You'd be a
boy-wonder in his eyes.
I've been the newbie employee who's been passed
down the machine that absolutely no-one else could administer. Unfortunately
for me, the internet then wasn't quite chock-full of solutions as it is today,
and I had to make do with only my brain and my keyboard. If there had been some
code, application or interface that would have allowed me to easily dump the
data onto one of our HP-9000's, my task would have been 100% easier. It's times
like that when you begin to appreciate efforts put forth like that of
MySQL.
So looking at the issue from the context of a system
adminstrator versus a SCO foe tends to make one a bit more receptive to efforts
like that of MySQL. I don't see any malice or lack of forethought by MySQL. I
do see a CEO that shouldn't be opening his mouth for the sake of MySQL, and a
company (SCOG) that will eventually see it's demise, regardless of
MySQL.
---
Collaborative efforts synergise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
My only real question is did SCO pay MySQL for this arrangement?
Apart from that little bit of curiosity, I couldn't really care less either
way.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 08:17 PM EDT |
I guess if MySQL gets dragged in the undertow there's always Firebird
database....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
| Well, as a Swede I think I can say this.
Swedish people (as a generality)
are usually pretty nice.
But have a few foibles. One of them is definitely a
HUGE
middle class complex.
To make my point; Sweden was at one point the
2nd or 3rd
biggest buyer of cameras, but ranked at the bottom as a
user of
film.
It's like the keeping up with the Jones's, here in the
US.
Some people are afraid to take a stand and profess that
you should not judge
them, or anyone else.
Of course you need to daily make judgment calls, or
you'll
do something stupid. To decided that someone like McBrawl
is not a
good person to be friends with is a good call.
The MySQL guys are having
the same willy nilly stand as
many other Swedes do. Typical is to hear how
unimportant
the individual is and the group is everything.
Then when you
point out that if the individuals are
stronger, the group will also be
stronger. It does not
compute for them. It's like a held down 7 on a
calculator.
Whatever you do you'll get the wrong answer.
Taking a stand
requires back bone, unfortunately many
people feel they cannot afford it.
Stefan. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 09:02 PM EDT |
MySQL should not be confused with true believers in the GPL. They were
essentially paid to relicense by VA Linux. In effect, VA Linux freed MySQL, it
was not the initiative of the MySQL company.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-242741.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.chguy.net/news/jun00/MySQLisGPLd.html
http://lwn.net/2000/0629/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
PostgreSQL is a viable alternative to MySQL. It is even more stable than
MySQL, and in general has better performance when it comes to bigger
databases, it's feature set is huge as well, which is a big plus. MySQL has shot
themselves in the foot by making this deal with SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
What database runs on the backend of www.groklaw.net?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:20 PM EDT |
Okay. SCO sells an OS geared towards potential MySQL users. MySQL decides to let
SCO bungle MySQL with their OS.
This is different from e.g. Samba how?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
When you start talking about Caldera, you need to get in your wayback machine to
talk about what was going on with linux then, not comparing it with what linux
is now.
I used the Caldera products from Caldera Network Desktop 1.0 to OpenLinux 3.1.1.
The product was generally overengineered, and everything worked out of the box.
It also shipped with all the source code used to build the binaries. There
were some types of packages that were not very good from open source, so
proprietary solutions were used. The target audience was businesses or users
that just wanted it to work and not have to fiddle with it. This seems to be
the same market that Novell is targetting with it's offerings now. By
comparison, the RH products never quite worked out of the box (for me) in that
same time frame.
I am coming to the conclusion that there just are not enough users that just
want to use their computers to support that approach. That is why Caldera never
turned a profit. Their product was more than good enough. That is why Novell
is having trouble with SuSE profits.
Caldera was not evil, or even malign. Caldera wanted to play in the same user
space as Redmond. Linux has yet to jump that chasm. The problem came when the
old management was ousted and the directive to turn a profit came down that
caused the problem. That was when a lot of the engineers who worked for Caldera
started looking for new jobs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:40 PM EDT |
I must confess that I haven't read the agreement between SCO and MySQL, so I'm a
bit ignorant on the details, but what's the chance that MySQL is counting on SCO
folding and being able to take their joint work and get full credit down the
road? Kind of like a "friend" helping you move when you're evicted,
just so they can scoop up the stuff you can't carry with you? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjcollier on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:18 PM EDT |
I think Marten means what he says. I've spoken with him a number of times about
his understanding of the GPL and the community that has grown around it.
He is quite well in touch, as much can be with so many users of the technology.
I don't know if I'm at liberty to give examples, however. I'll have to ask his
permission to put anything on the record. Do you want to discuss his decision
with him directly to get a better idea what his thoughts on the subject are?
Looking forward to hearing back from you.
Cheers,
C.J.
cjcollier@colliertech.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 12:07 AM EDT |
Oh come on Guys. This was a business decision. That's all it is. MySQL sells
liscenses. That's how they get thier money. SCO is just going to sell a few
hundred (Thousand? if they still have that many customers)for them. Just
business. What it really shows is how much SCO really thinks of their own
statements on how evil the GPL is. Hypocrisy lives.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
MySQL has one, and only one, thing going for it, and that is the fact it's
become a de-facto standard.
As for the rest, here's a partial list of issues with it:
Its standards compliance is lamentable. It doesn't handle the normal SQL
types, and handling of edge cases in those types it does handle is just plain
wrong in many cases.
it's near-impossible to migrate from any relatively complex MySQL codebase
to another platform due to its 'oddities', 'quirks' and just plain strangeness.
Ever wondered why stuff like mambo (which has a very clean codebase) won't
run on anything else apart from mysql?
It may perform a little faster than, for example, Postgres, but it's at the
expense of functionality (triggers, stored procedures and the like)
It has a distinct habit of soiling itself in a highly embarassing manner when
used in a transactional environment.
It only handles transactions on one table type (read - it only has one table
type that can really be considered useful except in very marginal edge cases)
Its licensing is odd, to say the least. Even the MySQL site can't give a
particularly clear-cut set of rules as to what license you need. Basically,
their
advice is "buy a commercial license, to be sure"
Do not trust MySQL AB as for database feature comparisons. their
comparison page is, to put it mildly, "slightly biased".
MySQL could enter into a partnership with God, and it still wouldn't make
their execrable toy worth considering for serious work.
If you want a real, enterprise-quality, free database that's standards
compliant, stable, mature, and doesn't lock you in to one platform any more
than necessary, use postgres.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 06:05 AM EDT |
When I read PJ's article, I first thought to myself: 'nice article, PJ -
very well said'. But then I took the trouble to follow the link and read the
whole of the original article. I was a bit disappointed to find it had been
selectively quoted. This bit wasn't included, and perhaps should have
been:
While the company may have taken some flack [sic]
from the community for partnering with SCO, Mr Mickos maintained that MySQL's
track record in promoting open source and opposing the European technology
patent directive should retain the community's trust. "That's a hundred times
more influential than any deal with SCO could have been," he
said.
Now that may or may not be true and might still
not be enough to mitigate MySQL's position, but let's just put it there for all
to see.
If MySQL can help existing SCO customers migrate to another O/S,
that's fine by me. And if there are technical reasons for not using MySQL,
that's also fine by me.
It seems to me that MySQL means well, but it's
underestimated how much hatred the letters S, C and O provoke in this community.
Witness the above post, "MySQL already blacklisted here".
---
Should
one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 07:38 AM EDT |
great summary - my thoughts exactly
who in their right mind would even want to do business with sco - gpl aside -
they sue their own customers.
we should all just let sco sit and rot like the dead tree stump they are.
I don't use mysql - I always thought postgres was a better product so I am glad
I don't have to migrate any databases now.
Guess it won't be long that the mysql customers will get sued for something sco
dreams up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 08:10 AM EDT |
| Does this mean mysql will start referring to us and long haired smellies. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OrlandoNative on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
To a company, supporting one's customers *is* the highest calling. Right up
there with making a profit, or at least breaking even. Indeed, some companies
have actually gone under trying to support their customers, in cases where a
product sold may have turned out later to have hidden flaws.
That's part of where the saying 'The customer is always right' comes from.
It's sort of like one supporting one's friends... ...they may make errors in
judgement, but if they're a true friend, does that mean you won't be there to
help if they call on you?
Like it or not, I suspect MYSQL has a fair number of customers running their
software on SCO os's. We may not like that, but that was the customer's
choice... ...or, in some cases, maybe an 'inherited choice' - from back in the
days before the current SCOundrels became what they are today. Those customers
expect, reasonably so, to get support; and if some degree of association with
SCO is necessary to make that support quick and (relatively) painless for them,
then that's the right thing to do.
After all, it's quite likely that SCO may not be around all that much longer,
but SOMEONE is going to have to start thinking about supporting THEIR old
customers until they can find something else to run on...
If we say, 'OK, go ahead... ...sink or swim' to those folks, we're no better
than SCO... ...after all, isn't that what they were basically doing with
SCOSource?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
no, I am not saying the situation is the same, except their licenses, but that
seems the be a important point here.
I've read quite a few posts already. Why do people have to so passionately
denounce MySQL as piece of crap (paraphrasing here) and tell others that
PostgreSQL is a much much superior work of craftsmanship. While, posts about
SQLite tend to be a lot more sensible.
Some pro-PostgreSQL posts (here and elsewhere) seem to be quite anti-GPL as
well, which is pretty much like the Linux vs BSD thing.
Isn't it enough to accept that MySQL is easier to deploy, despite its certain
lack of features and compliance, which it makes up for in other areas. While
PostgreSQL is older (probably means more mature, but that argument apparently
doesn't work for Windows), more features and compliant, takes a bit more to
setup, but still piece of cake compared to big players, and yes, very important
point, it's BSD.
Do you not understand that sometimes the strength is not in unity, but in
variety? Isn't that why Linux is doing so well? because it has so many different
versions for so many different tastes? Don't you understand that both GPL and
BSD licenses are about making software Free? Why is so important that one side
MUST be the RIGHT side and therefore the other MUST be done away with?
There, it's done. Now kiss and make up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Must you always see the world in black and white? Either you're with SCO or
you're against them?
I know another program which has been ported to SCO Unix, namely GCC, which is
quite a central piece of GNU software that.
SCO's users are not SCO's managment. Why should MySQL not give SCO's users the
option of running their software just because SCO's management is doing bad
things? And why should MySQL avoid catering to these users when it's in their
interest? What have the users done wrong?
For these reasons, the FSF itself decided that it should continue to support SCO
Unix, despite what their management has been up to.
Business is business. It's not a charity. In business terms, it's stupid to make
a deal with a company just because you like the management. And it's equally
stupid to avoid making a beneficial deal just because you dislike the
management. Business is not about management. It's about the consumers.
Too bad you can't see that.
And face it: SCO has users now, and will continue to have users even after SCOX
has gone bankrupt. There are existing support contracts in place. Someone will
undoubtedly take control over those assets in case of the demise of SCO.
Besides which, MySQL has contributed lots of very valuable and widely used code
under the GPL. And MySQL can develop that code any way they chose.
When Groklaw develops some software of their own one day, then they can decide
which platforms they want to support, but it's none of their business to tell
MySQL how to do theirs.
And if you plan on not using MySQL anymore because of this, be my guest. But you
should be consistent and give up on quite a lot of other GPL software (such as
GCC) as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
Let us know how your migration off MySQL goes. You might want to keep buying
pizzas for your tech team as they spend the rest of the month converting
everything.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, October 12 2005 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
Gues what. This is exactly what Open Source is good for. Companies that do
nothing good for the people can do as they wish. We can take their code, and
place it into another project. If it forks, so what. Let them go. We have the
code. Forget them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 14 2005 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
I still don't understand WHY Interbase/Firebird is not widely used, even been
superior to MySQL or Postgres. It's really a Industry grade powerfull RDBMS with
full support of SQL not as (MySQL) we are using FIREBIRD for years without
complaints
Maybe it's time to give FIREBIRD DB a chance...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
