Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

any side effect for PHP?

what do you think?

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

howa wrote:
> any side effect for PHP?
>
> what do you think?

Essentially none.

Typically one connects via a socket, and issues raw SQL calls..unless
sun change the way of communicating, why should PHP know or care?



In which case only a change to the sql library woulkd be needed.

Of course if they change the SQL *language* in a way that isn't
compatible, then all your queries mighty fail, but why would anyone
(except possibly Mircosoft) ever do something as silly as that?

They want a supported and supportable database for sun engines. With as
much third party support as they can get. They just bought it,. Good for
them.

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

The Natural Philosopher 寫道：

> howa wrote:
> > any side effect for PHP?
> >
> > what do you think?
>
> Essentially none.
>
> Typically one connects via a socket, and issues raw SQL calls..unless
> sun change the way of communicating, why should PHP know or care?
>
>
>
> In which case only a change to the sql library woulkd be needed.
>
> Of course if they change the SQL *language* in a way that isn't
> compatible, then all your queries mighty fail, but why would anyone
> (except possibly Mircosoft) ever do something as silly as that?
>
> They want a supported and supportable database for sun engines. With as
> much third party support as they can get. They just bought it,. Good for
> them.

Well, sun is not part of the LAMP family, I afraid the future of mysql
is too focus on Java, adding too much overhead for php.

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

howa wrote:
>
>Well, sun is not part of the LAMP family, I afraid the future of mysql
>is too focus on Java, adding too much overhead for php.

I think you're loony. Sun != Java. They had a lot of products before
Java, and they'll have many after. They did not buy MySQL so they could
rewrite it in Java. The same people will still be working on the product,
but now Sun can take the credit.

Sun has certainly not ruined OpenOffice. There's no reason to think it
will have any impact on MySQL.
--
Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

howa wrote:

> any side effect for PHP?

Quoting myself from http://message-id.net/jvm365-b8c.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk

| A database has been the string missing from Sun's bow for a long time.
| Sure, they had Adabas D, but no-one took that seriously.
|
| It'll be interesting to see what happens with MySQL now. Sun have been a
| company relatively friendly to open source, so I doubt that we'll see
| major forking by developers opposed to the new ownership. Development will
| probably continue much like it always has, but expect to see more focus on
| support for OpenSolaris; improved JDBC bindings; and possibly further down
| the line, support for functions and stored procedures written in Java.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 18 days, 22:01.]

Ham vs Bacon vs Pork
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/17/pork-etc/

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> howa wrote:
>
>> any side effect for PHP?
>
> Quoting myself from http://message-id.net/jvm365-b8c.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk
>
> | A database has been the string missing from Sun's bow for a long time.
> | Sure, they had Adabas D, but no-one took that seriously.
> |
> | It'll be interesting to see what happens with MySQL now. Sun have been a
> | company relatively friendly to open source, so I doubt that we'll see
> | major forking by developers opposed to the new ownership. Development will
> | probably continue much like it always has, but expect to see more focus on
> | support for OpenSolaris; improved JDBC bindings; and possibly further down
> | the line, support for functions and stored procedures written in Java.
>
I agree. Sun sell hardware and solutions, not software.
Unlike Microsoft.

Software, to them, is a means to that end.

I would *expect* that as far as the user/API interface goes, nothing
will change.

I would EXPECT that the database engine itself, *might* get a bit of
performance tuning against SUN's hardware, which may or may not emerge
into the public domain.

It might or might not go clusterish, and not use ISAM at all, later on.
But I think not.

Because the top end is well covered by Oracle, so again I would EXPECT
that MySQL will become a basic 'ships with the OS' type product, on
which a lot of OS admin functions might be based, as well as it being a
useful thing to have on board for less power hungry db apps.

Thinking back to my days of 200 employees and Informix on SCO Unix, and
telnet screens..I would have wet my pants for a SUN SPARC. with Mysql
and the apps ported to apache/php/mySQL

In fact, essentially that is what I am doing now..writing the db app
that despite spending 6 figure sums, I couldn't get then..it will
probably cost 6 figures in terms of my time, but then I am retired, and
its a hobby now.

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

On Jan 17, 9:24 pm, howa wrote:
> any side effect for PHP?
>
> what do you think?

1. License won't change for previous GPLed MySQL versions
2. We have PostgreSQL
3. Someone could fork GPL'ed MySQL at sourceforge

--

Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

On Jan 18, 6:48 pm, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:46:37 -0800 (PST), "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah"
>
> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 9:24 pm, howa wrote:
> >> any side effect for PHP?
>
> >> what do you think?
>
> >1. License won't change for previous GPLed MySQL versions
>
> Nor for the SUN "version", most likely.
>
> >2. We have PostgreSQL
>
> That's not mySql.

But, OS alternative

> >3. Someone could fork GPL'ed MySQL at sourceforge
>
> Why would they?

That's the common OS community response when some OS applications
are transformed to commercial. e.g., ProjectPier

--

Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

On Jan 18, 7:02 pm, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:54:59 -0800 (PST), "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah"

> >> >3. Someone could fork GPL'ed MySQL at sourceforge
>
> >> Why would they?
>
> > That's the common OS community response when some OS applications
> >are transformed to commercial. e.g., ProjectPier
>
> SUN has already said it'll be open source. Perhaps you're confusing
> SUN with IBM or MicroSoft?

I don't find any such reference. Do you have any URL?

In that case, it's going to be like Zend


--

Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

On Jan 18, 8:11 pm, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:38:03 -0800 (PST), "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah"

> >> SUN has already said it'll be open source. Perhaps you're confusing
> >> SUN with IBM or MicroSoft?
>
> > I don't find any such reference. Do you have any URL?
>
> http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2008-01/sunflash.20080116.1.x ml


I still don't find any such reference in the above link.

--

Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:24 pm, howa wrote:
>> any side effect for PHP?
>>
>> what do you think?
>
> 1. License won't change for previous GPLed MySQL versions
> 2. We have PostgreSQL

Excactly! :-)

I never understood how MySQL gained their huge marketshare, given the
fact that PostgreSQL was there, ready-to-use, and free for so many years.
Unless it is MySQL created a Windows version earlier than PostgreSQL
did, so new developers (who only knew how to boot into Windows) picked
MySQL.

I am a big PostgreSQL fan, and I always considered a vastly superior
database compared to MySQL. I always ask/advise my clients to use it.

About Sun: If history is a good reference, they will not screw MySQL up
more than it is already, and propably improve it a little.

Regards
Erwin Moller

> 3. Someone could fork GPL'ed MySQL at sourceforge
>
> --
>
> Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> SUN has already said it'll be open source. Perhaps you're confusing
>> SUN with IBM or MicroSoft?
>
> I don't find any such reference. Do you have any URL?

Future versions will be licensed under the GPL. Don't need to quote any
sources for that -- SUN don't have any choice. One of the conditions in
the General Public Licence says that any derivative products must also be
distributed under the GPL. SUN cannot legally take MySQL and make it
proprietary without getting permission from every person who has ever made
a contribution to the current codebase, which must be *hundreds* of
independent developers.

Whatsmore, SUN would be incredibly unlikely to even *try*. Of the large
technology companies, SUN have one of the most consistently good open
source track records:

* They bought StarOffice from StarDivision and released the
source code under the GPL, starting the OpenOffice.org project
which they continue to contribute to;

* In the last couple of years, SUN have re-licenced most of
the Java platform under the GPL;

* Three years ago they open sourced most of their operating
system, Solaris, albeit not under the GPL, but their own
open source licence.

SUN are really not the bad guys!

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 19 days, 2:47.]

Ham vs Bacon vs Pork
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/17/pork-etc/

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

Erwin Moller wrote:

> I never understood how MySQL gained their huge marketshare, given the
> fact that PostgreSQL was there, ready-to-use, and free for so many
> years. Unless it is MySQL created a Windows version earlier than
> PostgreSQL did, so new developers (who only knew how to boot into
> Windows) picked MySQL.

The Windows version gave MySQL a big boost, but it's not only that.

Firstly, PHP and MySQL were well-integrated from an early stage. The
integration between PostgreSQL in PHP is now just as good, but it wasn't
for a while. The growths of MySQL and PHP reinforced each other.

Secondly, PostgreSQL hasn't been around *that* long. It has a history that
goes back before MySQL, sure, but before 1997 it wasn't called PostgreSQL
-- it was called Postgres. The earlier Postgres system was a relational
database system that did *not* support SQL. SQL support was slowly added
between 1994 and 1997.

By the time Postgres became PostgreSQL, mSQL already had a strong foothold
in the mid-size UNIX database market. mSQL wasn't open source, but it was
fairly entrenched. So when an open source alternative (MySQL) came along,
offering full API compatibility with mSQL, it is no surprise that it
became immediately popular.

Lastly, but not least: performance. No, MySQL is not ACID-complete, and it
still has a long way to go to catch up with PostgreSQL, but it's always
been fast. As MySQL has started adding features, it has started to slow
down a little; and recent releases of PostgreSQL have made massive speed
improvements too; so the difference is becoming negligible. But for most
simple queries, MySQL is usually still slightly faster.

MySQL achieves a lot of its speed advantages by cutting corners in data
integrity checks. (For example, even in current versions of MySQL,
configured using default settings, it is possible to record nonsense dates
such as the 30th of February.)

For complex queries, PostgreSQL tends to do better. MySQL 5 still isn't
bad. MySQL 4 and below just barf and say they don't understand the query.
If you've got shed-loads of data and you're into serious optimisation, you
can probably make PostgreSQL go faster than MySQL, because it has much
better indexing facilities.

For example, say you want to frequently do searches like this:

SELECT telephone
FROM contacts
WHERE LOWER(forename||' '||surname) LIKE 'john do%';

(And don't get me started on MySQL's incorrect handling of the '||'
operator, and its general butchering of standard SQL syntax!) then on
PostgreSQL, you can create an index on an arbitrary expression:

CREATE INDEX fullnames
ON contacts (LOWER(forename||' '||surname));

MySQL cannot create indexes on expressions -- only on columns.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 19 days, 4:02.]

Ham vs Bacon vs Pork
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/17/pork-etc/

Re: Effect of MySQL being acquired by Sun Micro

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Erwin Moller wrote:
>
>> I never understood how MySQL gained their huge marketshare, given the
>> fact that PostgreSQL was there, ready-to-use, and free for so many
>> years. Unless it is MySQL created a Windows version earlier than
>> PostgreSQL did, so new developers (who only knew how to boot into
>> Windows) picked MySQL.
>
> The Windows version gave MySQL a big boost, but it's not only that.
>
> Firstly, PHP and MySQL were well-integrated from an early stage. The
> integration between PostgreSQL in PHP is now just as good, but it wasn't
> for a while. The growths of MySQL and PHP reinforced each other.
>
> Secondly, PostgreSQL hasn't been around *that* long. It has a history that
> goes back before MySQL, sure, but before 1997 it wasn't called PostgreSQL
> -- it was called Postgres. The earlier Postgres system was a relational
> database system that did *not* support SQL. SQL support was slowly added
> between 1994 and 1997.
>
> By the time Postgres became PostgreSQL, mSQL already had a strong foothold
> in the mid-size UNIX database market. mSQL wasn't open source, but it was
> fairly entrenched. So when an open source alternative (MySQL) came along,
> offering full API compatibility with mSQL, it is no surprise that it
> became immediately popular.
>
> Lastly, but not least: performance. No, MySQL is not ACID-complete, and it
> still has a long way to go to catch up with PostgreSQL, but it's always
> been fast. As MySQL has started adding features, it has started to slow
> down a little; and recent releases of PostgreSQL have made massive speed
> improvements too; so the difference is becoming negligible. But for most
> simple queries, MySQL is usually still slightly faster.
>
> MySQL achieves a lot of its speed advantages by cutting corners in data
> integrity checks. (For example, even in current versions of MySQL,
> configured using default settings, it is possible to record nonsense dates
> such as the 30th of February.)
>
> For complex queries, PostgreSQL tends to do better. MySQL 5 still isn't
> bad. MySQL 4 and below just barf and say they don't understand the query.
> If you've got shed-loads of data and you're into serious optimisation, you
> can probably make PostgreSQL go faster than MySQL, because it has much
> better indexing facilities.
>
> For example, say you want to frequently do searches like this:
>
> SELECT telephone
> FROM contacts
> WHERE LOWER(forename||' '||surname) LIKE 'john do%';
>
> (And don't get me started on MySQL's incorrect handling of the '||'
> operator, and its general butchering of standard SQL syntax!) then on
> PostgreSQL, you can create an index on an arbitrary expression:
>
> CREATE INDEX fullnames
> ON contacts (LOWER(forename||' '||surname));
>
> MySQL cannot create indexes on expressions -- only on columns.
>

Hi Toby,

Thanks for the historical perspective on mySQL's popularity.
I didn't know SQL support was added that late (from 1994 onto 1997).
I think I started using PostgreSQL around 1997, so that was a good year
in retrospect. ;-)

But the rest of your response only underlines why PostgreSQL is better
in so many respects than MySQL. ;-)
Anyway, I'll simply stick to PostgreSQL unless I am forced otherwise, in
which case I always use an abstractionlayer (ADODB) to ease the pain.

Regards and thanks for your response,
Erwin Moller