×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Fedora 19 Nixing MySQL in Favor of MariaDB

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the take-that-mr-ellison dept.

Databases 116

An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat developers are planning to replace MySQL with MariaDB in Fedora 19. For the next Fedora update, the MariaDB fork would replace MySQL and the official MySQL package would be discontinued after some time. The reasoning for this move is the uncertainty about Oracle's support of MySQL as an open-source project and moves to make the database more closed." Update: 01/22 13:47 GMT by T : Note: "Nixing" may be a bit strong; this move has been proposed, but is not yet officially decided.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. (5, Interesting)

phaunt (1079975) | about 2 years ago | (#42655879)

Here is a comparison of MariaDB vs MySQL [askmonty.org] .
Probably most important to Fedora is this:

Truly Open Source

  • All code in MariaDB is released under GPL, LPGL or BSD. MariaDB does not have closed source modules like the one you can find in MySQL enterprise edition. In fact, all the closed source features in MySQL 5.5 enterprise edition are found in the MariaDB open source version.
  • MariaDB includes test cases for all fixed bugs. Oracle doesn't provide test cases for new bugs fixed in MySQL 5.5.
  • All bugs and development plans are public.
  • MariaDB is developed by the community in true open source spirit.

Wikipedia, too, is moving from MySQL to MariaDB [zdnet.com] .

Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. (4, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | about 2 years ago | (#42656709)

Debian is planning to do the same (the thread containing approval from relevant people at Ubuntu too), for much the same reasons.

Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. (2)

cshark (673578) | about 2 years ago | (#42657695)

Two things that amaze me about this

1. That Debian isn't the first to do it. They're usually on top of this.

2. That it's taken this long to happen. We knew something like this would happen in the Linux community when Oracle took over MySQL. And there were some promising forking efforts that started immediately. Then, silance... for years. Now it's happening all at once, which is good.

Does anyone know if Maria is a MySQL fork? Or if it's totally new code? My cursory scan of the website hasn't revealed anything to this end.

Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. (1)

logjon (1411219) | about 2 years ago | (#42657799)

Does anyone know if Maria is a MySQL fork?
Signs point to "yes." [lmgtfy.com]

Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. (1)

eric_herm (1231134) | about 2 years ago | (#42658095)

On top on innovation ? Not really. Debian has become too big to innovate fast, and Debian is a little bit too often in freeze ( like 20% of time ) due to release pressure.

Mageia did it last year, so of course, this is doable, but for something of the size of debian, moving from mysql to mariadb is not easy to do, as you have dependency all over the archive.

Debian, MySQL, and Oracle (1)

doom (14564) | about 2 years ago | (#42659615)

On top on innovation ? Not really. Debian has become too big to innovate fast, and Debian is a little bit too often in freeze ( like 20% of time ) due to release pressure.

And really, Debian's big selling point is their "stable" branch. They're famous for being slower to change things than other distros (which increasingly seems like a big advantage to me, in a world where everyone thinks they have a right to broadcast UI changes to you at the designer's whim).

Anyway, while the threat from Oracle taking over MySQL has always been obvious, I don't think the other shoe has ever really dropped, has it? A situation to keep an eye on, but not necessarily any need to act quickly.

Re:Debian, MySQL, and Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42660929)

Used to think Debian stable was ridiculous. Then my [cooler distribution] install broke into dependency hell after several years of updates. Now happily running Gnome 2 and laughing at everyone else.

Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42658513)

Does anyone know if Maria is a MySQL fork?

You suck the Internet. Please use Facebook instead of Slashdot. It's better suited for you.

Re:See this comparison. Wikipedia is moving, too. (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#42659933)

Ya know, you gotta give the little twerp that sold MySQL credit, he not only gets a big fat check but he then forks what he sold and gets all his customers back! Smart as hell, I'll give him that, as nowhere else but FOSS could you sell something and keep it at the exact same time

Postgresql (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42655883)

Just use it.

Re:Postgresql (1)

GloomE (695185) | about 2 years ago | (#42655897)

At the risk of drunken understating...
+1

Re:Postgresql (5, Insightful)

egr (932620) | about 2 years ago | (#42655917)

Off-topic. Fedora already has PostgreSQL in its repositories. The point of the move is to replace MySQL, not to have some killer database.

Yes. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42655955)

The point of the move is to replace MySQL, not to have some killer database.

And for those of us who are tied to MySQL, it's nice to have an alternative now without the hassle of moving to a completely different DBM.

Re:Postgresql (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42655981)

Well obviously. But they need a MySQL compatible DB in the repos for software that inconsiderately uses MySQL instead of Postgres.

Re:Postgresql (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656109)

You can't build a LAMP stack with PostgreSQL! The closest you can get is LAPP, but nobody wants a LAPP stack - it sounds like something Spaghatta Nadle would use for makeup.

Re:Postgresql (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#42656741)

You can't build a LAMP stack with PostgreSQL! The closest you can get is LAPP, but nobody wants a LAPP stack - it sounds like something Spaghatta Nadle would use for makeup.

Got something against reindeer?

Re:Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42658347)

LAP^2

Pronounce as 'Lap squared'

Re:Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657167)

What about LAPP dances?

Re: Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42658857)

LAPsquaredances?

Re:Postgresql (4, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#42656113)

Unfortunately it's not that simple.

For example I have an application that uses a case insensitive collation. Afaict postgresql does not support this. There are ways to implement the same functionality (create an index on the uppercased version of the columns value) but it would mean changing every query that hits the columns in question.

For new stuff I will definately be choosing postgresql over mysql though.

P.S. does anyone know of a tool that can be used to design postgresql database schemas and export create/update scripts? (like mysql workbench does for mysql)

Re:Postgresql (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42656201)

P.S. does anyone know of a tool that can be used to design postgresql database schemas and export create/update scripts? (like mysql workbench does for mysql)

Could it be as simple as keep using mysql workbench (which I've never used) and pipe it thru SQLfairy aka SQL::Translator (a sourceforge project) to convert from mysql to postgresql?

I have a simple automated system that mysqldumps all my schema, then shoves them thru sqlfairy to convert to DOT (you'd be converting to postgresql, which I know sqlfairy claims to be able to do), then shoves the DOTs thru graphviz to convert to png diagrams, then creates a simple webpage to link to each db diagram. Easy and fast and fun and automatic. Also pretty boring unless you properly define your foreign keys.

Over the decades I've found its rather hard to machine translate, expect plenty of hand editing fine tuning unless its truly a miracle product and the format specs on both sides are incredibly well defined, or are very simple..

Re:Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42658635)

That's nice, but what do you do about applications which link against /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so? MariaDB is a drop in replacement. Postgresql, while being very nice, is not.

Re:Postgresql (1)

Thundersnatch (671481) | about 2 years ago | (#42656219)

The closest thing to case-insensitive collation is the citext data type [postgresql.org] . It works basically transparently as a case-insensitive replacement for varchar and text.

The major feature keeping $dayjob from using PostgreSQL over MSSQL in new development is the lack of an accent-insensitive collation. Making an index using a custom function marked IMMUTABLE that calls (lower(unaccent(text)), and then calling the same function in nearly every query, is simply too hackish to stomach.

Re:Postgresql (1)

rtaylor (70602) | about 2 years ago | (#42660603)

Hmm. You can specity a COLLATION to use on each column (or index I believe) but you would need to find or make a collation which does what you want and call it "en_SIMPLE" or something.

CREATE TABLE test1 (
a text COLLATE "en_SIMPLE"
b text -- Default collation
);

You can even define it on the fly in the Selects if preferred
SELECT * FROM test1 ORDER BY a COLLATE "en_SIMPLE";
SELECT * FROM test1 ORDER BY a COLLATE "en_US";

The question is, how do you create a new collation.

Re:Postgresql (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42656259)

Sounds like you need to fix your application.

Re:Too bad SQL is not like W3C standards (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#42656529)

Every vendor wants their own proprietary extenstions, and even fight each other on who gets the most proprietary lockin, apis, and extensions on top of their own SQL to maximize pain leaving their shit ecosystem. ADO.NET, ODBC, and other things where you can't just use sql, but another vendor $$$ framework that locks you in further and add dozens of lines of ugly code and before you add another proprietary layer of Vendor X SQL inside it.

Then gee you can't leave it. Larry grins and then raises the cost knowing you are hostage etc (dramatization here).

HTML and CSS was that way in the 1990s as well. We bash IE 6 here but Netscape didn't follow standards either. Today that is fixed.Why can't we do that with data access?

What will it take for all of them to work together like ansi ascii text, C++, or HTML?

I admit Oracle and SQL Server will be a bitch to get rid of in the enterprise due to these sneaky moves, but slowly change will come when PostgresSQL, MariaDB, and others who want to play nice come up with one standard, one way to do things, and get oustracized here on slashdot as crap if they do not follow the spec? This is 2013 and these proprietary games are oldschool before the internet when corps were in a pissing match on who could make the most crappiest proprietary system out there so customers could never leave... cough unix.

Re:Too bad SQL is not like W3C standards (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 2 years ago | (#42657773)

I wrote a .NET application back in 2004 that used ADO.NET to interface with a MySQL database. It was quite painful to code compared to just using MS SQL. Once I got the connector working (it wasn't a mature product at the time), the final application worked pretty well.

Re:Too bad SQL is not like W3C standards (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 years ago | (#42659753)

Part of the problem is that ANSI SQL is fairly unfeatured. That's why everybody adds to it.

ANSI SQL really needs some official extensions so that much of the proprietary nonsense can go away.

Re:Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656785)

Looks like PostgreSQL considers case insensitivity a different data type: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/citext.html

Re:Postgresql (4, Informative)

bad-badtz-maru (119524) | about 2 years ago | (#42656913)

Set your LC_COLLATE environmental variable on the PG server (and any client machines). PG probably isn't finding a setting, so it's defaulting to "C". If you switch it to something like en_US, collation will be case-insensitive. You may have to reindex after making the change.

Re:Postgresql (1)

nuonguy (264254) | about 2 years ago | (#42657939)

Have you heard of pgmodeler [github.com] ?

PostgreSQL Database Modeler, or simply, pgModeler is an open source tool for modeling databases that merges the classical concepts of entity-relationship diagrams with specific features that only PostgreSQL implements. The pgModeler translates the models created by the user to SQL code and apply them onto database clusters from version 8.0 to 9.1. **

Re:Postgresql (1)

petsounds (593538) | about 2 years ago | (#42659733)

Postgres has a case-insensitive data type extension available called citext [postgresql.org] .

Re:Postgresql (1, Insightful)

wisty (1335733) | about 2 years ago | (#42656429)

By design, Postgresql is simply not as good a key-value store as MySQL / MariaDB. Innodb stores the data along with the primary index (technically cluster index), so it's fast to look up data by the primary key. Postgres is a better database, though.

Re:Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42659525)

I can't believe you got a +1 mod for that ridiculous comment. Storing the data along with the primary index saves you a page read in the (unusual) case that you are only reading one PK at a time, otherwise the page reads are equivalent. And if you are reading only one PK at a time, you don't care if it takes one or two page reads from disk. (If you do, think about what you're doing, and re-design your logic and queries.)

Re:Postgresql (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656489)

I don't use Ubernanny programs that tell me i can't start them as root.

Re:Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657795)

Bingo. To still be using MySQL/MariaDB instead of PostgreSQL is crazy.

--libman

Re:Postgresql (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42659149)

I don't use databases. I use programs.

The programs use databases. I give the programs what they ask for.

Re:Postgresql (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 years ago | (#42657929)

Not much use for complex projects expecting something as straightforward a migration path away from MySQL as possible.

Re:Postgresql (1)

cshark (673578) | about 2 years ago | (#42658885)

Why not just migrate to one of the newer, cooler, noSQL databases? Some of them are maturing quite well.

Re:Postgresql (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42659213)

Why not just migrate to one of the newer, cooler, noSQL databases? Some of them are maturing quite well.

And web-scale too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

We've begun the move away from MySQL also (4, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | about 2 years ago | (#42655885)

We've begun to move away from MySQL offical release also. Although we went with Percona rather than MariaDB.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42655995)

Yes, but by all means, don't share your rationale. Let us guess:
a) You did this so you can impress your friends at the wine & cheese bar?
b) "Percona" sounds manlier
c) "MariaDB" is too mainstream and not indie enough
d) the mean-time-to-recovery in an active-passive node is 17% faster in Percona over MariaDB
e) It was the product you guys picked from a hat
f) You really hate your job and convinced the others to support this

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42660021)

"cona" in portuguese means "cunt". So yes, very manly indeed :P

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656035)

+1

While Monty will continue to introduce new features, consultants like Percona are better placed to make those features perform and perform reliably. Submitted by someone who lost data with some of the earlier MariaDB releases.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 2 years ago | (#42656339)

"Submitted by someone who lost data with some of the earlier MariaDB releases." - AC

Submitted by a Percona shill, perhaps? Nobody praises consultants except consultants, and people who work for consultants. Who's to say it performs more reliably than the other fork?

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656705)

"Submitted by a Percona shill, perhaps?"

Or perhaps by someone who lost data with an early MariaDB release and does not want to risk data loss again? Sometimes the guy or gal who creates new technology is not the best person to make it "ready for production" - this happens all the time in the F/OSS community and behind closed doors in the business world. Imagine where Linux would be today if development never moved out of academia and hobbyist basements? We would all be using SLS v30-something and not have any enterprise options available. More than likely Linux would not have survived as long as it has.

Just because you do not agree does not make the other person a troll.

- AC

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42658045)

Nice.

Percona work closely with, and contribute to, a number of mysql related projects. They're a very useful part of the community.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 2 years ago | (#42660199)

Complete rubbish, if this were an argument about the morales in the record industry, you'd take the opposite tack. MySQL AB is the struggling artist, now out in the street. Oracle is the evil company making most of the money from repeat sales of struggling artist's music, already recorded. Percona is the DJ / Promotor type remixes the music, legally, and adds hip street cred (read marketing).

The truth is, OSS is supposed to be about removing the capital barrier, and giving the struggling an artist a reward for it's work. So this whole squabble over MySQL is missing the point - and the only people doing the right thing in all of this are the Maria team. I hope they succeed where MySQL AB failed.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656837)

Given his behavior when MySQL was independent and his behavior when Sun/MySQL was bought up by Oracle, I'd prefer to stay far away from anything associated with Monty Wideanus.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657767)

Soooo, you don't use MySQL in the first place then right? Why are you trolling this thread?

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656199)

They are fairly comparable in features and performance in most cases while both are arguably superior to MySQL. MariaDB uses code from Percona (XtraDB) and tends to be more bleeding edge while Percona is more conservative and stable. MariaDB is a community effort whereas Percona is an actual company who you can call (pay) for support if needed (they will support any flavor of MySQL but Percona is obviously their area of expertise).They are both good products in their own way and give back a lot to the community. .02

Feature/Perfornace Comparisons:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12671634/mariadb-vs-drizzle-vs-percona-sever-vs-mysql
http://vbtechsupport.com/657/
http://vbtechsupport.com/606/

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657623)

Note that those comparisons are with MySQL 5.5.
MySQL 5.6 is supposed to have performance improvements [mysql.com] over 5.5 that should make it competitive with Percona Server, particularly on machines with many cores. Percona will also incorporate these changes.

MariaDB is farther from mainline, and merging in the changes that are applicable to them will take longer [mariadb.org] .

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42656655)

ve begun the move away from MySQL also (Score:3, Insightful)
by C_Kode (102755) Alter Relationship on 01-22-13 5:10 (#42655885) Journal

We've begun to move away from MySQL offical release also

Who are you? Why do I care what C_Kode on slashdot does? I think you left out an important article, like the value of "we".

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657033)

by drinkypoo (153816) writes: Friend of a FriendFoe of a Friend on Tuesday January 22, @09:53AM (#42656655) Homepage Journal

I'm not sure if I like you or not. Say something funny or quizzical.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42657145)

I'm not sure if I like you or not. Say something funny or quizzical.

What's that supposed to mean? Don't call me, I'll call you.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (1)

NotBorg (829820) | about 2 years ago | (#42658743)

Because everyone cares what "drinkypoo" has to say.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (1)

dstyle5 (702493) | about 2 years ago | (#42660357)

Especially poo drinkers.

Re:We've begun the move away from MySQL also (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#42658955)

His sig says "Internet Python Users Group (iPyUG.com)", which looks like a pretty standard BB that doesn't like my choice of browser (well, my lack of javascript), and not a heavy user of databases. So I'm still not really bursting with confidence that his recommendation is a good one.

Migrating (4, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#42655977)

How easy is it to migrate from MySQL to MariaDB?
Is it truely drop-in replacement as in "you can develop to MySQL, then run MariaDB in production without worrying"?
Does it require converting current tables? Will it take a 10GB database all day to convert or will MariaDB just use the raw MySQL data files automagically?

Re:Migrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656161)

It is easy to migrate.

The problems are similar to migrate between different versions of the same products. There is always some details, but the main remains compatible.

Re:Migrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657073)

Very informative!!!

And how does that add to our information?

Re:Migrating (5, Informative)

hholzgra (6914) | about 2 years ago | (#42656195)

> Is it truely drop-in replacement as in "you can develop to MySQL, then run MariaDB in production without worrying"?

yes, unless you use some of the non-GPL extra features like e.g. authentication plugins or pool-of-threads. For these MariaDB has GPL replacements but the implementation and configuration may differ ...

> Does it require converting current tables?

Data format of MyISAM and InnoDB tables is the same, so "no" in general. mysql system database may differ a bit, but nothing the mysql_upgrade tool can't fix, and you'll have the same issues when develop against an older MySQL version and deploying to a newer one ...

> Will it take a 10GB database all day to convert or will MariaDB just use the raw MySQL data files automagically?

It will use existing raw files just fine. mysql_upgrade may take a few minutes max., but not all day ... (unless you're migrating from an older MySQL version and mysql_upgrade needs to recreate some indexes ... but that would happen when upgrading to a more current MySQL release, too, and wouldn't be MariaDB specific

The only point where it isn't a simple "try and revert if you don't like it" drop in replacement is if mysql_upgrade changed mysql.* system tables and you want to roll back to regular MySQL ... but then again this is also the case when trying to upgrade to a more recent MySQL release and then deciding to roll back to a previous older one again ... so you should always have a backup to restore the original system tables from ... but you'd do a full backup before any version migrations anyway, wouldn't you?

Re:Migrating (5, Informative)

TheBlackMan (1458563) | about 2 years ago | (#42656197)

I have recently migrated 2 of my servers from MySQL to MariaDB with about 1,5mil unique users. The only problems i had were some configuration (my.cnf) changes. Except that, none at all.

Re:Migrating (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656627)

with about 1,5mil unique users.

Your doing something horribly wrong if your DB has 1.5M login roles. Please tell me, I misinterpret something.

Re:Migrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657435)

I interpreted this as "my two servers are accessed by an application that serves 1.5M people" but... maybe *I'm* misinterpreting.

Re:Migrating (2)

deKernel (65640) | about 2 years ago | (#42656319)

Uhm these are all very good questions, but here is a suggestion: verify this for yourself!

Percona (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656385)

Just looked at Percona.
While it is open-source. it has a profit-making arm. This can change with the stroke of a pen. There is enough "sales talk" to make me wary.
MariaDB has no such constraints. Its developers embrace the open-source concepts. Its team is made up of MySQL's developers, one of whom developed MySQL. One can only guess at the reason they split from MySQL. I would prefer to believe that it's not because of Oracle's business philosophy and practices with its other products, its ownership of many database programs, its upper management, or its litigiousness.

Re:Percona (-1, Flamebait)

autocannon (2494106) | about 2 years ago | (#42656871)

So the developers of MariaDB took all their experience and knowledge that they obtained at Oracle while working on MySQL and created a direct competitor product to their prior company's product? I don't care why they did it, it's underhanded and doesn't speak well to the character of those people.

That "litigousness" you reference should have given them pause before doing this. Oracle just may find enough crossover coding and algorithms to go after those guys. Wouldn't matter if they're innocent or not, just the court costs involved could wipe them out.

Re:Percona (4, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 years ago | (#42657233)

So the developers of MariaDB took all their experience and knowledge that they obtained at Oracle while working on MySQL and created a direct competitor product to their prior company's product?

Yep, and he was SUCH a sneaky, underhanded shit that he left the company a whole YEAR before Oracle even knew they had it.

Derp.

Re:Percona (2)

alexgieg (948359) | about 2 years ago | (#42657321)

So the developers of MariaDB took all their experience and knowledge that they obtained at Oracle while working on MySQL

No. Oracle purchased bits and pieces of technologies used by MySQL (the product), while MySQL (the company) was purchased by Sun. Then Sun itself was purchased by Oracle, which ended up owning both those previous pieces as well as the core of MySQL. In any case, none, or very little, of the technologies that go into MySQL were developed by or at Oracle. And even if something was, since MySQL, being GPL, comes with full blown, official patent licenses to all employed technologies to anyone who downloads, uses, changes or redistributes it (when one selects to GPL-license something, one also selects to license all patents one owns that go into that something), it'd be free for the use no matter what. So, they're in the clear. Those guys left Oracle to continue working on what they were doing before even joining Oracle in the first place. Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires them to stay with Oracle, or play in Oracle's interests. And Oracle itself is fine with it. Because they explicitly said so in the GPL license. Which they could have changed if they so wished, but didn't.

Re:Percona (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#42657463)

MySQL was created by an European company called MySQL AB. It was later acquired by Oracle where development has mostly languished. The MySQL AB founder decided to found MariaDB by forking MySQL. Underhanded my ass. Did you read what Oracle did with InnoDB? They undermined MySQL to the point where they felt they had to sell more like it.

Re:Percona (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#42657479)

Oh and MySQL is GPLed software so anyone can fork it if they want to.

Re:Percona (1)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | about 2 years ago | (#42659911)

So the developers of MariaDB took all their experience and knowledge that they obtained at Oracle while working on MySQL and created a direct competitor product to their prior company's product? I don't care why they did it, it's underhanded and doesn't speak well to the character of those people.

Yes they did. Just like game developers who go to a different studio and create competing games, a doctor who goes to a different hospital to treat patients, or a truck driver who goes to a different trucking company. All of these people changed jobs and are in direct competition with their previous employers. I find their character to be of a much better quality than yours.

Re:Migrating (1)

bcrowell (177657) | about 2 years ago | (#42658323)

Here's what worked for me on debian. See https://kb.askmonty.org/en/how-can-i-upgrade-from-mysql-to-mariadb/ [askmonty.org]

mysql --version # I'm running 5.0, am supposed to upgrade to mysql 5.2 or later to run mariadb 5.2
mysql_upgrade -p # upgrades me to 5.1, no 5.2 available; will just try installing mariadb 5.2 and see if it works
mysqldump -u root -p --all-databases > whole_database.sql # shouldn't be needed, but just in case
mysqladmin -u root -p shutdown
apt-get remove mysql-server

Now install MariaDB.

https://kb.askmonty.org/en/installing-mariadb-deb-files/ [askmonty.org]

apt-key adv --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com 0xcbcb082a1bb943db
cat /etc/issue # tells me I'm running debian 6.0, which is squeeze, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#Release_history
# use this web ui to generate text to put in sources.list
# https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/
cat >/etc/apt/sources.list.d/MariaDB.list
# ...cut and paste into this newly created file
apt-get update
apt-get install mariadb-server
mysql -u root -p # still called mysql for compatibility, but it comes up and identifies itself as mariadb
show databases; # all still there, no need to restore from backup

The mysql binary, etc., are all still named the same thing for compatibility, so, e.g., there's no need to change the cron jobs that back up my database.

Ha Ha (5, Insightful)

EETech1 (1179269) | about 2 years ago | (#42656147)

That is one thing I always loved about Open Source Software, you can't hold it hostage. If something happens to threaten the project, its fork you, and bye bye!

The users and developers take what was there (and theirs) pack up and resume life a usual somewhere else, and give the finger to all the Larrys that come along and try to (ab)use them as part of their own personal plot.

If you take care of them they will stay, and you might even see your user and developer base grow, but try and take advantage of them and you will soon be left with nothing. They take the short term pain of starting over instead of the long term pain of taking orders from someone who does not have their best interests in mind.

Cheers!

Re:Ha Ha (2)

Kardos (1348077) | about 2 years ago | (#42656341)

The lesson here is: Don't let Oracle touch anything open source, or you're going to be forking in a year or two

Re:Ha Ha (5, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#42657523)

The problem with Oracle is they always do it like this. First they acquire a major competitor in a major cash transaction then they milk it for a couple of years firing most of the development team and selling licenses while they can. Then they cease support altogether. They are not interested in further developing anything they acquire. It is all slash and burn. Their main expertise was never development it is sales and support.

Oracle or Monty Widenius? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656157)

Eh, fuck 'em both.

Update: 01/22 14:01 GMT by LarryEllison: (4, Funny)

LulzAndOrder (2667597) | about 2 years ago | (#42656215)

Larry Ellison responded with the comment, "you are all spelling it wrong, I renamed it MY sql some time ago."

Why not... (0, Redundant)

zoid.com (311775) | about 2 years ago | (#42656217)

Just move to PostgreSQL and be done with it?

Re:Why not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657113)

No thanks!

Why MariaDB and not PostgreSQL? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656223)

Foolish Humans. No big loss on MySQL, but why not PostgreSQL? It dominates: http://vicky2183.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/postgresql_versus_mysql.jpg

New Red Hat (0)

myelizacitra (2818427) | about 2 years ago | (#42656343)

I think this is not good news for developer and users who use open source Red Hat.Some people don't know how to use this latest DB because MySQL is mostly use as DB in all leading Programming language..... http://tiny.cc/qbgbrw [tiny.cc]

PostgreSQL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42656571)

Why does noone mention PostgreSQL? It is more stable and outperforms MySQL in many cases. It is used in Enterprise production and it's FOSS as well. Are there any advantages that MariaDB has over it?

Database? As part of an operating system? (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 2 years ago | (#42656585)

Why is *any* database a part of an OS? This isn't required functionality. It isn't even day-to-day useful as a browser, or a word processor.

After installing the base OS, a distro can offer to optionally install packages - such as a database - but I don't see why that choice should be limited to just one example. Make both MySQL and MariaDB available, and any others you want.

Re:Database? As part of an operating system? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42656677)

Why is *any* database a part of an OS? This isn't required functionality. It isn't even day-to-day useful as a browser, or a word processor.

If their components use it, it's part of the OS. If their components don't use it, it's not part of the OS just because you say it is; it's simply bundled with the OS. If they use it then they need it and your objection is invalid. If they don't use it, then it's not part of the OS and your objection is invalid. Either way...

Re:Database? As part of an operating system? (2)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 years ago | (#42657205)

Well I'm sure part of the issue here isn't whether it's technically "part of the OS", but rather a question of the repositories. Since Linux distros these days generally include a package manager linked to a set of official/supported repositories, anything in those repositories becomes, in a sense, part of the operating system that they're distributing.

Fedora has to decide what they'll include in their repositories, what they'll treat as "supported", and what they'll list as "deprecated". Sure, you can go along afterwards and install all kinds of other things from source, but most people will use the repositories if they can, so what Fedora decides to include is an important issue.

Re:Database? As part of an operating system? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#42657649)

On a server a browser or wordprocessor is close to useless. Also, on the web browser front, have you investigated what's in a modern browser these days?

Meanwhile on both end-user and server platforms, a well designed, well integrated, DBMS is an extremely useful component to have for, well, storing data. Not that anyone would argue that of MySQL, but it says a lot that, for example, SQLite is part of Android.

Re:Database? As part of an operating system? (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#42659167)

Is is understandable that an OS would come with a package management system.
It is understandable that package management systems could have a DB backend.
=> It's understandable that a database might be part of the OS.

Even if it's not noticeably so (i.e. not a standalone package) then there's almost certainly an ad-hoc one hiding in a statically linked library anyway. Which is the less preferable option, IMHO, there's really no need to roll-your-own DBMS any more.

slashdotted? (2)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 2 years ago | (#42656869)

Tehe, mariadb.org no workie.

Not necessarily (1)

kc9fyx (1310661) | about 2 years ago | (#42656957)

Bad reporting by Phoronix here. The feature has been proposed, but it has not yet been voted on by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo). It may or may not be approved for Fedora 19. I don't want to speak for Jaroslav Reznik, but he doesn't necessarily support the proposal. As the Fedora Program Manager, it's part of his job to post these proposed features to the mailing list for discussion prior to the FESCo vote.

Re:Not necessarily (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#42660255)

> Bad reporting by Phoronix

-1 redundant (but the rest of your post is +1 insightful, don't worry) ;-)

Who trusts Monty Widenius? (2)

jjohnson (62583) | about 2 years ago | (#42657181)

MariaDB is Monty Widenius' fork after leaving Oracle. MySQL is in Oracle's hands in the first place because Widenius sold MySQL to Sun. The man responsible for MySQL is also responsible for the fragmentation of the community into a bunch of forks with growing incompatibility problems.

Re:Who trusts Monty Widenius? (1)

icsx (1107185) | about 2 years ago | (#42657735)

The things were different back then before the sell. While MySQL was sold, the deal turnet more crap and the original developers and owners left Oracle for this reason.

Remember that MySQL was sold to SUN, not to Oracle so he had possibly no idea or no power to stop SUN being acquired by Oracle.

Re:Who trusts Monty Widenius? (1)

jjohnson (62583) | about 2 years ago | (#42658201)

If you sell to one tech company, you're buying into subsequent sales of that tech company. Acquisitions happen all the time--Oracle buying Sun surprised no one, and Widenius didn't give a shit because he got a big payout. Now he wants to repeat it.

Re:Who trusts Monty Widenius? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657825)

Same can be said for Oracle.

Mariadb was i belive originally intended as nextgen mysql but then Oracle bought Sun and the threat of closed source Mysql lead to a fork.

Mariadb is compatible in its 5 series and percona is compatible as far as possible. Which other forks are there?

Re:Who trusts Monty Widenius? (2)

jjohnson (62583) | about 2 years ago | (#42658247)

Besides MySQL, MariaDB and Percona, there's Dribble that's actually a viable fork. One's official, one's competing by the original founder, one's got all the experts at clustering, and one's just kind of there as well. So now, instead of one weak-ass database, you have four that are mostly the same but not identical, which will bite you in the ass at some unspecified point in the future.

Back when it was just MySQL, it was a reasonable choice because it had known strengths and weaknesses. Now you've got shitty fragmentation. If you're starting a new project, which fork do you go with?

Easy answer: Postgres.

M&M's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657331)

If this gets taken far enough, and MariaDB replaces MySQL elsewhere, at least we won't have to change the way we spell LAMP.

Don't do it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42657555)

I use mariadb in a production situation and actually regret the move from mysql. Mariadb is cool or at least as "cool" as any mysql variant can be (bias: I'm from a postgresql background and tend to choose that for any personal project). But it has some stability problems that I didn't have with mysql. I know how to crash any mariadb server (though it'll just restart) with a handful of queries (provided I have table creation rights), and yes, I filed a bug report. Over 6 months ago. (I also have some situations where maria fucks up (and mysql didn't) but it involves some data that I was never able to distill down to a small recreatable test case.) Mariadb is "over-optimized." Don't use it.

Fedora full of bugs and memory leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42660623)

Fedora should first get all memory leaks sorted out in Fedora 18. Instead of going forward with experimental broken shit, they should make things become reliable and stable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?