Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MySQL Editions

mysql.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: MySQL Editions

#91

Post by SkyMarshal »

steveklabnik wrote: post #83
Roboprog wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it the extra P is for PostgreSQL? As far as I could ever tell, the only advantage MySQL ever had over PostgreSQL 10 years ago is that it ran on Windows, and Postgres did not, back then. Oh, and by skipping ACID features, MySQL was faster. So, back in the day, that drove me to conclude that all the MySQL fans were crazy, and I decided to use Postgres at home, since Windows != server, and having done quite enoug…

Most Rubyists (I have no numbers for this, just a general sense of the community, I could be totally wrong, all generalizations are false, etc) use Nginx nowadays, so it'd be more like LNPR.

Most Rubyists also seem to be squarely in the NoSQL camp too, so try LNNR.

Re: MySQL Editions

#92

Post by cullenking »

timhastings wrote: post #31
wlievens wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going the "non-default" route of using postgresql you might as well ditch PHP. Unless P=Python? :-) LAMP is a loaded acronym which these days basically means "a web app built using FOS but not in Java or Ruby".

I am using the LNNMMMMP stack at the moment... Linux, nginx, node.js, memcached, MySQL, Mono, MongoDB and PHP. Am I normal?

I am in the same boat, though not with your exact setup. It's easy to acrue alot of individual components, especially if you are a tinkerer, when developing a non-trivial application.

rails, sinatra, mysql, resque, custom email server (looking for a name...), memcached.

How the heck do you mix in mono?!?

Re: MySQL Editions

#93

Post by cullenking »

beagledude wrote: post #63
anilbioma wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remove M for MySQL in LAMP and make it M for MongoDB

mongo is still a joke for most applications

Your kidding right? It has a time and a place, and can pretty "easily" be substituted for mysql/etc in most applications. We just put together a really fun project, a very vanilla community news aggregator aimed at cyclists. Took two days of core coding and another day or two playing around with styling/functionality, but mongo was a fantastic fit. http://veloscoop.com

[edit] I mis-clicked and upvoted you when I meant to downvote. Incendiary statements about valuable technology has no purpose here.

Re: MySQL Editions

#94

Post by eru »

jerf wrote: post #85
eru wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was more concerned about the copyright repercussions on clean-room reverse engineering the protocol. Obviously the protocol includes copyrightable information, now.

To the best of my knowledge, the best answer is "nobody knows". There are some vaguely similar things in the precedents, especially when it comes to protocols that require you to use a particular patent to talk to a given device, and IIRC there is some verbiage in some places that distinguishes copying around for simple transmission reasons rather than delivery to an end user (though I can't imagine how to stretch th…

Thanks!

Re: MySQL Editions

#95

Post by runningdogx »

sabat wrote: post #75
hapless wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several MySQL forks, have been for years. Most notably: Drizzle, MariaDB, Percona MySQL. There are many others. I don't see anyone rushing to abandon mainline MySQL for the forks.

Percona's is probably the closest to the MySQL people are looking for; Percona is the premier MySQL consultancy, and they've patched the codebase for performance, etc.

From Monty's presentation about MariaDB, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL1l9Puh0sk I got the impression that MariaDB is the primary open MySQL fork, with Percona merging their patches and becoming a downstream of MariaDB. Did MariaDB and Percona have a falling out in recent months?

Re: MySQL Editions

#96

Post by spudlyo »

Andys wrote: post #46
nodata wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reason you are being downvoted is that you are comparing PostgreSQL with the commercial version of MySQL. A better comparison would be between EnterpriseDB and the commercial version of MySQL.

Afaik, the free version of MySQL doesn't let you do a live transaction-safe database dump of InnoDB tables. A pretty basic feature I thought, which is included in the free version of PostgreSQL.

This is incorrect. You can use XtraBackup for this which is an open source alternative to innodb hot backup. Alternately you can quickly lock tables and take a filesystem snapshot or even run mysqldump with --single-transaction all which will let you get a consistent dump of a set of InnoDB tables.

Re: MySQL Editions

#98

Post by hippich »

dangrossman wrote: post #7

Judging by the comments people are confused. The free, GPL edition of MySQL ("MySQL Community Server") is still what you've always had. These are the commercially licensed products. Oracle's shifted around some features and pricing on support plans and such, but if you're not a commercial customer, nothing's changed for you.

Probably someone here can explain it to me:

It's clear that someone doing proprietary software on top of mysql have to get proprietary-compatible license for mysql.

But. How this happens, that community submitted code/patches/etc gives Oracle profits? Isn't including any patch/code from GPL version into Proprietary version automatically enforce GPL rules and makes impossible to include this software into any other proprietary software?

I saw this with other projects too. I am really interested how company behind product can provide both proprietary and gpl licenses for their products.

Re: MySQL Editions

#99

Post by famousactress »

Travis wrote: post #77
brandon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd negotiated licenses between $200 and $500 for their old basic offering (depending on volume). I've been punting on a switch to Postgres for the last few months, but they've forced my hand now.

Any particular reason you're not just using the community edition? Do you need the innodb features? (I'm asking because I've been wondering lately if I should make the switch...)

The fee is for the JDBC connector, not the db.. regardless of edition.. Bummer, that.
Post reply on HN