Just announced at the MySQL Partner meeting as part of the MySQL Conference and Expo in Santa Clara, CA:
MySQL will start offering some features (specifically ones related to online backups) only in MySQL Enterprise. This represents a substantive change to their development model — previously they have been developing features in both MySQL Community and MySQL Enterprise. However, with a shift to offering some features only in MySQL Enterprise, this means a shift to development of those features occurring (and thus code being tested) only in MySQL Enterprise.
As I’ve discussed before, the size of the user base for MySQL Enterprise is much smaller than for MySQL Community. That means these critical features will be tested by only a few of their customers. So, in effect, they will be giving their paying customers real, true, untested code. How is this supposed to work? In addition, this means that they are changing their internal development model, splitting the relationship between the two trees, and overall going even further down the path of getting the RHEL/Fedora model backwards.
What do you think about this? Leave a comment, I’m really curious as to everyone’s feeling on this.
UPDATE: Marten Mickos has just acknowledge that I understood the slide quite correctly, and they will indeed develop new features in MySQL Enterprise (in 6.0), without making them available in MySQL Community. Hmm!
Jeremy Cole 
PostgreSQL is still a completely viable product line, in many ways better (yes, that’s a religious battle, not trying to start a flamewar).
But, seriously… MySQL AB has shown for a while that no matter how much they may BENEFIT from the Open Source model, they seem determined to put a bullet in their own head through their not-understanding of the model, going back to when they were leaning on corporate customers trying to say that “distributing” the MySQL binaries within the company servers qualified as “distributing” for GPL purposes, and they needed to buy licenses, or that because they used the database on the backend of a public site that they needed a license.
MySQL simply does not understand the market they’re in. Which is pretty pathetic actually, because the market is theirs to win or lose, and they seem determined to throw obstacles in their own way of winning it.
I heard about this about a week or two ago during a webinar about some upcoming features in MySQL. I’m not positive, but the webinar may have only been available to Enterprise users as well. I was a little disappointed, but not entirely surprised as Sun/MySQL continue to look for ways to differentiate enterprise versus community to justify the additional cost. While it’s definitely not the only path they could have taken, it was probably the easiest for them to conceptualize. I just hope in the end it works out for the best.
Jeremy, thanks for your comments! Input is always welcome – positive and negative. We are (or are at least trying to be) a learning organisation.
I appreciate your concern for our paying customers. They are, after all, the ones who pay our salaries and allow us to produce more GPL software. They are also the ones we listen to when we decide what to develop for them, and how.
You have a point, but I am also seeing other examples in the industry and I would be interested in knowing what your take on them is. InnoDB HotBackup is a closed-source program that is given first to paying customers, and never to non-paying ones. As far as I understand, customers are happy with it. In my understanding WebYog also has products or features that they deliver to paying customers only. And MySQL AB released some years ago the Monitor product which is for paying customers only. All those products are working well and serving customers well.
The same applies to the largest group of PostgreSQL-based companies: EnterpriseDB, Greenplum, Netezza, etc. It seems to me that the situation is analoguous between Postgres and MySQL: a great product under an open source licence, and various commercial initiatives around it. The great thing is that the open source licence in use puts clear rules for the game, and then it’s up to the various innovators and entpreneurs to make the most of it.
It is a goal of myself and of our organisation to produce more GPL code, because we believe that open source is a smarter way to produce code, and we believe that the GPL is the most suitable licence. MySQL Cluster is an example of something that was closed source but that we GPLd and further develop. MySQL Proxy is a newer example of GPL code from scratch by us. To enable more GPL code to emerge, we also are working on making the MySQL server more modular and having more APIs. This will allow not only us but also others to more easily create more FOSS code in and around MySQL.
If we happen to develop a feature that we ship only to our paying subscribers, there is nothing stopping others (including yourself) from producing the same effect with GPL code. Specifically around backup, we are making sure that the core functionality is in the server so that anyone can build their own add-ons – as I am sure many will. That’s the power of open source!
We also have an ambition (and always had) of ensuring that there is a viable revenue-generating business around MySQL. This has enabled us and our partners to create thriving businesses, hire more people, and produce more FOSS code. If you know of a better business model for us or if you know of someone else who produces more GPL code, I am all ears.
Does this make sense? I look forward to comments from you and the readership.
Marten
Another step away from open source.
The community edition becomes more of a “lite” version. It was harsh to predict this would happen back when the community/enterprise split happened, but now that it has arrived it doesn’t seem suprising. It’s been a long, gradual, letdown.
I agree with you whole-heartily, it makes no sense to make the enterprise version out of basically ‘beta’ quality code. So does this make the fork more of a fork now? Will ‘enterprise’ features stay in the enterprise version only? Or will they go into the community version when they’ve been ‘beta-tested’ enough by the people paying to beta test it? :-p
If they will not go into the community version, does that mean the community version is pretty much dead now?
As a Sun shareholder, I couldn’t be more disapointed in this decision. Mysql, you work for me now! I’m also a first time user of MySql. The backup story is one of things that concerned me as I did my due dilegence. The small fries can benefit from online backup too as they work to grow their businesses into Enterprise Subscribers.
For some strange reasons, I’m not surprised. People tend to remember only that “they are successful” and not “why they are successful?”.
In the end, I just hope this turns out good.
Marten,
If you understand Power of OpenSource, why do you think restricting Backup only for limited users will make it stronger, well-tested, discussed in community, popular ?
Why OpenSource is good for MySQL server by itself, but bad for Backup ?
It all gives only one impression that Sun/MySQL is greedy of money and wants to make it any possible way.
Partially OpenSourced | MySQL Performance Blog
This is just bad news. But it’s not like it’s the first time MySQL pulls this trick.
They already did that when building a Carrier Grade edition for cluster. That indeed also was a product where they had customers paying for unstable beta products. Exactly the reason why I totally dropped proprietary products in the first place.
Magnus Hagander's PostgreSQL Blog
Doesn’t this decision technically act to lengthen MySQL’s already-lengthy release cycle, as far as community users are concerned? Instead of being excited about the next version (which is typically years away), cool stuff will now be kept under lock and key for another number of years.
It seems rude to ask the community to hack on stale code. Furthermore, keeping that code stale will increase integration costs when enterprise features are ported to the community edition (assuming that everyone in the community doesn’t quit in disgust). Based on the current decisions of management, those integration costs will someday spell the end of the community product.
Why is there even a special enterprise edition in the first place? I think MySQL would be better of with one version for everyone which is well tested and build it’s paid services around that. Paid services meaning support of course, priority bug fixing with custom builds, MySQL Enterprise Monitor and stuff like that (https://shop.mysql.com/enterprise/). There is more to come in the future, especially when the capabilities to extend MySQL are better (as Marten stated) – there can be things like commercial storage engines, backup tools, functions, stored procedure languages and of course a lot more that Sun/MySQL or others can come up with.
What I really don’t like about MySQL Enterprise is that it is not modular. I would love to have MySQL Enterprise Monitor, but I don’t need support (I’d rather pay per incident if I really need it) for example. In fact, I couldn’t justify to my company paying for unlimited support. It either means I’m incompetent as DBA because I always support or I’m wasting money on things we don’t need. Same goes for enterprise builds, the concept seems quite flawed to me as I stated earlier.
Well, time to switch to enterprise source for building own packages… until mysql stops providing enteprise source, ups…
I think this just goes to show the lack of true understanding for the open source development process and how a true open product is a stronger model. I came from Red Hat where everything was OPEN, never hidden features for certain customers and now I’m at Ingres where we have an enterprise open source database and we subscribe to the open source development model as well. We see the value everyday for community engagement, testing, code submissions, university engagement, etc. We grow and learn by those around us. All our features are available with a gpl license and are available as development progresses on the project. I don’t get how a project as successful as mysql can turn against such a loyal base. Beauty of free commerce – There is choice folks ..
Try Ingres – ingres.com
I am sure there are plenty of other ways to capitalize on MySQL and still keep complete community transparency for all features.
Selling services, support, maintenance plans/SLAs and specially tuned appliances for one.
How much profit does MySQL -really- need to make anyway? Sun’s bought them. Sun makes $$ off services and hardware. I am sure that the cost for developing MySQL to them is small (besides for the initial $1B buyout) compared to the benefits they receive from owning the most popular open source DB.
I’m a bit disappointed in this… IMHO MySQL benefits the community and the community benefits MySQL. Don’t start splitting the product up.
It seems like Jonathan Schwartz and Mickos are not reading out of the same playbook. Every one of Jonathan’s presentations I’ve sat through in the last 12 months has been hammering the idea that there are two types of organizations:
* Those that will never pay for software.
* Those that must pay for support.
If that’s really true…and what Sun believes, continuing the MySQL open/pay split doesn’t make any sense.
SmugBlog: Don MacAskill » Blog Archive » The Sky is Falling! MySQL charging for features!
From open source to closed source.
MySQL started to develop closed source software when they introduced MySQL Network. This software was only available for paying customers.
Now they developed MySQL Enterprise only for paying customers.
Bye bye MySQL.
I am moving over to Ingres, where I can pay for professional support if I want and get all the Enterprise features for free.
Thanks for all your comments on our business model. I wanted to present here the quick facts around this to avoid misunderstandings:
In 6.0 there will be native backup functionality in the server available for anyone and all (Community, Enterprise) under GPL.
Additionally we will develop high-end add-ons (such as encryption, native storage engine-specific drivers) that we will deliver to customers in the MySQL Enterprise product only. We have not yet decided under what licence we will release those add-ons (GPL, some other FOSS licence, and/or commercial).
Because the main backup functionality goes into the main server under GPL, anyone can of course use the api and build their own add-ons or other modifications.
Marten
In response to Marten:
“””
The same applies to the largest group of PostgreSQL-based companies: EnterpriseDB, Greenplum, Netezza, etc.”””
What I find interesting is that you only listed companies that exist at the grace of venture capitalists.
Have you considered that Command Prompt which does have a closed source PostgreSQL product, is actually open sourcing that last bit because unlike MySQL and the others, we have figured out how to create a sustainable business model.
jbablog.com | MySQL Enterprise to get exclusive features
Yeah. I’m aproaching the boss this afternoon with this news. I’m going to try and get some money to start investigating migrating away from MySQL to postgres. What the viabilities are , and the logistics and toolchain required.
I’m sorry Sun, but if you are excluding MySQL open source from innovation, then the product is effectively discontinued. Thats unnaceptable to us.
Its even more worrying that this will effectively terminate participation in development by the open source community.
Sun, seriously.. Get lost!
For all your pretending to ‘get’ open source ,your just another frigging dinosaur with a marketing department. Consider this a divorce.
It seems to me as if Sun/MySQL are still going to offer the database product, storage engines, drivers, and some basic tools to the community. They are then going to sell their “advanced tools” that interface with the database product.
If at the same time MySQL developers make MySQL APIs more clear and modular, doesn’t that mean the F/OSS community, commercial enterprises, and even end users can then design their own “advanced tools”? In essence I could likely open my own sourceforge project for a MySQL Backup type tool that competes with the “official” tool.
Smells like capitalism to me, and their is nothing wrong with that IMO. Now if core components of the database server, like storage engines, start to become closed source (i.e. Falcon only available to enterprise customers or something like that) then I’ll start to get very nervous about the 200 or so MySQL servers I admin throughout our enterprise.
SME-in-a-Box » Blog Archive » Sun to close-source portions of MySQL
It’s funny how you say that the code will be “real, true, untested code”. It’s called QA, and testing products. The entire software industry has always worked that way, before open source became popular, and after it’s arrival. To say that either Sun or MySQL can’t release products without adequate QA testing is minimizing what software engineers do or QA engineers.
As to what the MySQL community should do, just fork the code source based on the last known good GPL version, and implement the features as it used to, and call it something else. I don’t understand why people are just sitting back and crying about it… this is what they did back in the golden era of open source. People did it the old fashioned way… they earned it!
I’m really disappointed in MySQL for doing this. Where else can you get your code battle-tested besides having open source programmers pore over it?
I run a couple of websites that use mysql and I simply will not use releases that haven’t been developed openly and peer reviewed.
Note to Sun: if you want even more programmers working to improve MySQL, please change the source code repository from BitKeeper to Git. Just a thought
david | rasch — Management, Software, and Technology » Not too happy to hear about this
OwlManAtt’s Blog » As Anticipated: Sun Ruins MySQL
Hmmm. Seems as if Sun is trying to have the best of both worlds here. My impression is that they want to graze off the open source labor of community edition and roll that along with their own efforts towards Enterprise edition which is making them money.
Unfortunately I am afraid this will backfire on them. OSS/FOSS developers are a strange breed with more than our share of ‘dogmatic’ zealots. There are a lot of different reasons why developers choose the open source model. For myself contributing to a project is a way to expose my work to my peers and a broader base of people. I get to see my work improved, expanded, criticized and viewed from different angles through different angles. In my opinion this helps me more than selling a chunk of code to the highest bidder. I work for my benefit and the benefit of those in my community. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts.
Mr. Mickos, I doubt that more than a few people are honestly worried about the backup functionality in 6.0. I think we are worried about the Community edition in general and whether it will stagnate while it’s fruits are carried off to feed ‘paying’ customers with little or no return back to Community edition. Taken in isolation this move is not alarming, but added to Sun’s stances on other open source issues some may find it alarming. Sun’s open source projects seem to be so only technically not in the spirit of open source. Almost a “let the nerds play with it, and if it gets bif enough we can close it and make some real money from it” mentality.
Also Mr. Mickos, I find your statement about building addons using the API to be condescending. I can also use the API for PostGres and Ingres. We know what we can do and what we can’t. Now we just have to decide who will benefit from our work.
I used RedHat for many years then came the Fedora split. RH makes an exceptional product, but I refuse to use because I don’t feel I can trust them.
Although I have had good luck with MySQL in the past, I feel that when my next database project comes up I don’t know that I will be comfortable recommending it. Now seems a good time to give PostGres and Ingres a good hard look.
Well, it just makes me no choice. I will turn my back to MySQL until Sun return to the right track. Now, I would suggest my company to migrate to PostgreSQL, rather than MySQL.
Wow, I have not been catching up on the IT news of late but when I logged on this morning on Google News and found that MySQL will start charging licensing fees.
Alarm bell started ringing. Linux and open source concepts had been supported by the large numbers of programming community at large. Now open source concept is seen to be threaten.
Should the programming community continue to give their efforts to open source is now in question.
I am totally in support for open source and that the users should pay a small sum to the people who put up support services for open source support. Meaning these support sites and their staff need to pay for eg. utility bills, etc.
But to have large commercial companies buy a open source group and to start charging licensing fees, (I have not visited MySQL lately to view how much the recurring charges will be), will require me to review all database applications and their cost/benefits.
It is fine when MySQL is used and the user makes sufficent income to cover their use. What about those who use them for their own personal use. I would personally use MySQL and use its backup facilities because I CANNOT afford to lose my data and this is the exact model Sun is targeting as they know from experience, DATA is your world.
Long Live Open Source.
User of Informix/MySQL. Previous Ingres / Oracle User.
This doesn’t make much sense, given Jonathon Schwartz’s edict a couple of years ago that *all* of Sun’s software would be open source. And they’ve come a long way towards doing just that… OpenSolaris, Java, all sorts of enterprise middleware, and tons of other code has released as open-source by Sun. For them to go backwards towards a proprietary model seems a bit odd. I’d guess that this is an internal communication issue inside Sun and will eventually change. But that’s just a hunch.
[quote]I came from Red Hat where everything was OPEN, never hidden features for certain customers[/quote]
Everything except RHN. :-)
As an entrepreneur who has started many businesses and built them up to operational status to sell them and start again, I need to start with a viable low-cost development model. Enterprise is for later when customers are on-line, inventories are moving and employees are being added. All these elements reside in a startup venture database that must scale and migrate to the future. Backups are the business. In a RAID failure, and no backup solution in place, the venture is doomed.
Sun must realize this and this is why they are doing what they are doing. You will pay for MySQL or not use it. Startup ventures rely heavily on FOSS and Open Source solutions such as LAMP, Pentaho, Open Office, etc. Having to spend Oracle dollars for a necessary database solution isn’t in the cards or the budget of a venture startup.
Once Enterprise operability is achieved, enterprise budgets are also achieved allowing one to purchase Enterprise solutions. The point is that if I start my venture with Ingres, Postgres, MySQL, Oracle or whatever, this will be the platform for the Enterprise. Sun’s forcing me to find a non-MySQL solution for the startup guarantees that I will use a non-MySQL solution for the future. It was a bad decision.
lol so many people bi tching about additional cost.
I dont like paying more for things but i do understand companies need to feed their employees.
For those who are bi tching about the price really really cheap arss people. Would rather get some free things than to pay a penny.
These are the same freaken people bi tching about microsofts os that it costs so much money- so really 300 bucks for an os is really alot of money? try adding up your cell phone bill, electric bill on an annual basis.
300 bucks over 3 years is 100 annually- or for the most people 2 months of cellphone usage.
The open source community is a small faction- theres really no f*cken money in open source and they are all beggers. Those who put in the time to develop some new stuff is because they are in the field and enjoy the “people” raving about their “new” feature but at the end of the day- it comes down to money- if they arent making money, who the hell who put the time to develop these new gadgets.
Try buying food for free.. so people shut up about this free thing- open source is good in that it puts big hot shots on their toes because open sources are quicker to get new technology out but poor on the support of it. non free can aleast hire some techy that can potentially fix the problem but open source- well.. customer support… theres no such thing.
/dev/null » “Semi”-Open Source
MySql : Menutup Source Code ? « The Life Server Of Linuxgembel
We’ll find out whether this is a good decision by Sun or not. One thing seems to be clear to me, though: The decision represents a good trigger point for assessing alternatives. Depending on what options you come up with, you may actually decide to stay with MySQL…. Or to move on.
Is Sun close Sourcing MySQL? - Ng Khai Computer Solutions Blog - Translating Technology to Business Strength through Better Communications
Reflections of a BizDrivenLife » Blog Archive » Is Sun close Sourcing MySQL?
MySQL replication options are shithouse and these sort of add-ons will only get worse now. Why?
We wanted a simple multi-master hub and spoke replication solution, and were prepared to purchase one, but called MySQL and they couldn’t offer anything. So with the community offering more solutions than MySQL, supressing community involvement is actually a backwards step for the product.
The Web and Microsoft : Sun Planning to close source some features in MySQL
Yo Yo Yo » Blog Archive » MySQL to Go Closed Source
Well RHEL created CentOS so maybe now we get CentSQL :p
Alper’s Weblog [~]> » Blog Archive » Sun, MySQL kaynak kodlarını kapatıyor mu?
blog.cnizz.com » Is PostgreSQL licking their lips?
I find it amusing that the same people who gripe at Sun making any money at all off of MySQL are the same people that feel they are worth a six-figure salary and will haggle for every dollar when going for another job.
The bottom line is, Sun’s got to make money with MySQL, so they can pay folks to both develop and support MySQL. Having gone that route once or twice before with companies, it seems as if Sun is trying to make it a win-win deal – continue to give the MySQL community MySQL for free, while at the same time charging a fee for stuff that the enterprise would naturally be more inclined to pay for. C’mon, how hard is it to use mysqldump anyway? The folks who are whining about going over to Ingres or PostgreSQL … well, let ’em – so what? It’s a feebly blatant but ultimately fruitless attempt to manipulate Sun – “if you don’t do what *I* want you to do, I’m going to go somewhere else!” Most people learn this tactic in kindergarten – and unfortunately never learn that it’s emotionally immature to whine and cry like a 6-year-old when they don’t get their way.
On the other hand, the folks who run the show at MySQL had to have known it was going to go this way when they agreed to be bought out by Sun, regardless of whatever verbal assurances Sun gave them. Marten took the money, now he’s got golden handcuffs – the unavoidable outcome of the process. After all, Sun is not a charity, and it’s not a non-profit – it exists to provide a profit for its shareholders and a reasonable living for its employees (note that I am specifically excluding executives – most executives are *grossly* overpaid for what they do anyway!), and to not make a profit would likely have the board of directors screaming for the heads of Schwartz and McNealy.
(Of course, McNealy should be used to that sort of thing, having survived the lynch mobs from the UNIX community when he jammed Solaris down the throats of SunOS users in the early 90’s, but that’s another story!)
Making good features closed source will then increase illegal copying.
So MySQL will not make more money, instead getting more popular on torrent trackers…
Or why not pirate Windows 2003 Server + SQL-Server? Sure it’s windows but it’s faster than mysql anyway.
I guess Sun needs money, while they are opensource-modeling Java more and more, they need to acuire other things that are able to generate a decent amount of cash. Could that be a reason?
Sun to begin Close sourcing parts of MySQL Development | Terry’s Worklog
el blog de manu » Paseando por la Red el 17/04/2008
Frankly I won’t believe they (MySQL/Sub) would be stupid enough to do this. That means, I don’t believe they actually close any parts of MySQL. They’d risk losing community support and that would hit them severly.
What I suppose is that their commercial plugins will be big-enterprise-stuff, like integrating MySQL backup with Data Protector/Veritas/TSM/etc. or enabling MySQL to be monitored by high end (and high cost) commercial monitoring/management solutions.
It won’t affect those who are willing to use MySQL on free-software-only Linux boxes and someone who has money to buy some enterprise class stuff (like DP, TSM, OVO, etc.) will certainly have money for enterprise version of MySQL along with all its additional “enterprise” plugins.
Of course, when I suggested that MySQL was moving away from it’s open source roots when the Enterprise tarballs disappeared from the website site, I was labeled a conspiracy theorist.
Yes Marten, you and the other MySQL employees deserve to make money selling your MySQL services. How many people at MySQL use CentOS for things … what if I started trying to hide the source code for that? You FORGET how and why MySQL is where it is in the open source world. Your moves to take away your enterprise source code from the public will result in people finding other free alternatives. You will then sell less Enterprise subscriptions, not more.
MySQL reserves features for paying customers; open-source community up in arms · Technologyland News, Education, Headlines,Security, Storage ,Networking, Information on Hardware, Software for Laptops ,Desktops
MySQL: neue Features nicht mehr Open Source? | Wissen belastet
Hi people,
I just logon to MySQL to check the price of the Enterprise Edition.
I am lost for words. USD$ 599 per year and above.
As an Informix user, well, when you have used Informix, it is difficult to find an alternative. When we turn to MySQL, as the next best alternative after IBM Informix (IBM bought Informix for USD$ 1Billion), we could move some of our applications on to open source architure.
Whereas the cost of MySQL is still cheaper compared to Informix or Oracle, small businesses will be affected.
If Sun could consider lowering the cost of MySQL Enterprise to USD$ 49.95 per year and above, I would consider continuing with MySQL otherwise the performance comparison would go toward higher priced but extremely efficient RDBMS like Informix, Oracle.
Reconsidering RDBMS user.
Here are some “random” comments I’ve about it
1) At the beginning, MySQL was a closed-source DB lacking many features. This led me to choose the slower but GPL and more complete PostgreSQL
2) The Backup system is only really needed for (very) large DB. Most people can get away with a simple “stop DB, copy files, start DB” or a DB Dump of the tables. In other words, these would be more useful to big companies for which the added cost is minimal.
3) SUN has got to get some money… it has people (developpers and other) to pay and so on… They are *NOT* close-sourcing parts of MySQL but adding closed-source features (once some code is in GPL, it can’t be taken away). Some of these feature *MAY* find their way to Open Source later…
4) SQLite, MySQL, Postgresql, Firebird, Oracle… There is lot of choice, from the simplest one to the most complete, GPL, free or commercial…. And all these are supported under many programming langages and OS… Future will show us if entreprises get away from MySQL or if SUN made the right choice.
5) if you don’t agree with SUN’s move, fork. Bitching around won’t do any good !!!
This has very little to do with Sun, MySQL.com split their server into a 2-tiered product almost 2 years ago: http://tinyurl.com/4s7988
Still, anything that gets people to look around for a real free DB *cough* PostgreSQL *cough* that actually cares about data integrity must be a good thing.
Firebird News » Sun to Begin Close Sourcing MySQL - time for alternatives like firebird
So, Sun hijacked mySQL… unfair, unfair!
They took ownership of code that was, in some sense, the “property” of both mySQL AB AND the community and now they start harvesting the fruits of software that surely wouldn’t be that nice without the community’s contributions and deep involvement. What made the success of mySQL is that it is/was open source and free.
Sun began by selling associated services but now they start selling the software itself with a few extras. They’ll keep the software’s core open source for benefiting from free manpower and concentrate their future developments on the Enterprise version only. The problem I have is that it’s not the initial “deal” with the community anymore, as now Sun will benefit from the community but the latter will not benefit from Sun.
There will be mySQL and mySQL Lite, as somebody else said. And even contributors will have to pay for the full version…
If I had spent hours in coding/debugging in the mySQL Project, I’d be disgusted and turn my head somewhere else.
Eric
btw: wouldn’t first move be renaming MySQL to SunSQL, since things tend to show it will not be “ours” anymore…
Eric
If those of you claiming to be in charge of IT projects are actually true about that claim, the companies you work for must be horribly miss-managed IT-wise, seeing how much you misinterpret and fall for FUD.
Glen Scott - Keeping it simple, since 1977 » MySQL: Open Source, mostly.
MySQL fork now!
This is bad news, particularly from a security point of view.
You can run the free version of mysql on anything, including hardened
platforms like OpenBSD.
Not so for the enterprise version, of course.
Sun empezará a cerrar secciones del código de MySQL. « El Futuro esta Abierto… GNU/Linux
Don’t forget that today’s codebase is GPL… community may fork MySQL to create OurSQL and let Sun alone with it’s partially closed source MySQL…
So, community has the choice : follow SUN’s rules or fork… Whining is useless…
Also, I’d say that we should first wait a few month (keeping last full-GPL MySQL source tree secure) to see how things are going… Maybe it’s a false alarm, maybe SUN will add to MySQL API so these closed-source parts will be external extensions built on top of these API… This would means that Community will be able to create it’s own versions of these parts…
451 CAOS Theory » MySQL’s business model in a state of flux
The solution is simple. There is only one thing that anyone can do that will actually, really, honestly, get their attention.
What is that one thing?
Simply stop using mysql. Start your new projects with postgresql from the beginning. Begin migrating your old projects over to postgresql.
When their market starts to dry up, they will immediately take notice. They will have left the barn door open and the horse will be long gone by then, much to their detriment, but they will notice.
So, remember that. Repeat after me: I will use postgresql from now on. I will use postgresql from now on.
That is the only option you have available to you to show them your displeasure.
Just a thought.
The GPL license MySQL source carries in it’s preamble states
[quote]
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom
to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software–to make sure the software is free for all its users.
[/quote]
Is the Enterprise version different in that sense ?
I am saddened by this move and the previous split (which was inevitable in this capitalist world).
Once upon a time I thought it was “ultra cool” to boast about using a completely Open Source, community driven product that did what I needed it to do, and did it very efficiently and effectively. It was great in the day to challenge typical database and program interface design decisions in light of the features MySQL did not have, and balance the resulting design against MySQL’s speed and learning curve required to achieve the high performance.
Now, I doubt I will use MySQL again. I think the idea that bored and keen developers will look at the sources of MySQL in the future to see what they could learn or what they might be able to optimise for their own usage has been completely overshadowed by this Enterprise versus Community split and resulting overblown discussions, mainly negatively based.
And as a result of most negative statements in such discussions, bored and keen developers will look for other more/completely Community focussed projects from which to learn and/or contribute back to in the positive spirit that makes FOSS projects successful in the first place.
» MySQL anuncia nueva versión con importantes mejoras pero por otro lado SUN comienza a cerrar código
What I am seeing is people saying they will take their business elsewhere now. The problem is they are getting mysql for free already so who on earth are they punishing? Oh no they are taking they zero dollars and (not)spending it elsewhere! I even saw someone say they would raise money to change from mysql. What? Why not just buy mysql and not have to spend all the time migrating? MySQL in programmers-want-to-be-paid-for-their-work shocker!!
Redhat should have purchased mysql. Sun and mysql are like 2 dysfunctional people wondering why they have so many problems. So, my idiot ball says this- MySQL will fork- and Sun will screw themselves over- again. Dat.. is it. Game over.
Sun , Mysql'in kaynak kodunu kapatýyor - Ayyas
vBulletin SEO Forums
Sorry for the now following, truly unprofessional comment, but I’ve got to get rid of it:
This (MySQL’s) move makes me somewhat sad, as they’ve always been one of my favourite companies; cool, friendly image, smart (and working) business model, creating great and free software.
Greed. This sucks, MySQl, eh, I mean SUN sucks so much.
PS should fork it and rename it YourSQL
The whole MySQL deal seems a bit fishy. At the end it will be a product of SUN. That said perhaps at one point Oracle would be the true answer,
Sun to Begin Closing up MySQL Source Code | The "Break it Down" Blog
I want a pony!
Seriously, I want to run my business off of free software that will maintain itself, install easily, protect me from my own oversights, require unskilled labor to maintain, and never breaks or has problems.
I also want it to have any feature I can think of, before I can think of it. Because if I can think of it, somebody else should have thought of it already and coded it into the software.
Since I never want to deal with the software company except to download my software (which should be done thru P2P protocols) the marginal cost of me using the software is, or is very close to, $0.
They can charge for support, but when the problem is with their software (and it always is), I want a 1-800 number I can call for free and get routed to someone that speaks english as their first language so I can complain about the software, have my hand held, and then have whatever the problem is fixed immediatly.
Vote with your feet, use the software that provides the specific features you need and at an agreeable cost. Good luck if you can’t find it.
Everyone wants a pony, but no one wants to clean up the shit.
Tightwad Technica » Sun begins to close MySql
I am a Enterprise Silver customers of MySQL. We bought the support package for two reasons. We thought we MIGHT need some tuning that would go beyond our ability to find info on the web, and we wanted to support a product that we were basing our development on.
We moved away from MS-SQL. We’ve had a few issues with the MySQL optimizer not being as capable as the MS one.
It’s been mixed result, but we believe MySQL will grow and correct the stumbling points we’ve found. MSSQL on the other hand was not and was not stable enough to base our development on.
I did not plan to renew my silver contract at the end of the term, and still do not plan to. This move concerns me. I understand the motivation and I want MySQL to be a profitable venture that attracts more developers and customers like myself.
But I don’t want to get stuck with increasing bills and less stable platforms. I already left one platform like that, I don’t want to have to find another.
.:Computer Defense:. » Portions of MySQL May Go Closed Source (aka Company Offers “Paid Functionality”)
PostgreSQL is still a completely viable product line, in many ways better (yes, that’s a religious battle, not trying to start a flamewar).
—————
MySQL is a great db, but it’s not the end all, be all OSS database. It’s just popular because it’s easy. PG smokes it. It is *not* slower despite the braindead benchmarks that compare the two. Learn C, code the PGSQL procedures in C and write a complicated database app on both, then bench mark them with an equivalent feature set enabled. You’ll see what I’m talking about ; )
PG simply *smokes* mysql for anything more complicated than simple selects, provided you handicap them equally. (turning off enterprise features of PGSQL that mysql does not have, which are enabled by default)
The best tool for the job at hand is the best db server. It could be either depending on the application. If you don’t need pgsql’s performance and flexibility, MySQL is the obvious choice.
The fact that you can download and use MySQL for free is a great gift. Complaining about this is looking the gift horse in the mouth.
Outside of that, they are partially closing the source of the Enterprise tools not the FOSS version. You have to buy Enterprise to get the features anyway.
@Denis
On point 1, pgsql is not slower. You just need to grok it and learn C 8)
On point 2, you can actually use replication, and start/stop the slave to do backup snapshots with no downtime 8). That’s how I roll. After you restart the slave, he runs through the transaction logs and catches up. The front end never sees anything. This is available in the FOSS version. I know because I set it up that way before we got Enterprise. We’re still doing it the same way ; )
On point 3 you are partially correct. They can say “Ok mysql 5 will be closed source” and do a full rewrite with their in house developers and use the GPL code as a source of technique and ideas.
On the post above this one, you are absolutely correct. That’s precisely what the community would do if Sun did this, fork it. The GPL was designed for this contingency. Ultimately Sun would only suffer by doing this. They are, however, only obligated to provide source up to the point where community contribution stopped, or the source the community developed is used, most likely in library objects. They could lock it down in sections this way.
I’ve been using PGSQL since 1998, know Oracle(since 8i), Sybase/MSSQL(starting with version 6.0), and MySQL(since 1999) and have a hard time watching people badmouth pgsql’s performance. It’s just not true if you know what you are doing with it and know C. To really get the most out of it you need to spend a few years getting intimate with it. I’m not talking about administration; I’m talking about programming it and tailoring it’s feature set.
It is the single most flexible and feature rich FOSS database server there is. It’s the only one that can truly be called “Enterprise class”.
I had an app on mysql that needed more performance (an ad server/reporting). I got it by moving to stored procedures written in C on PGSQL and streamlining by turning off the enterprise features (which I didn’t need and sap performance out of the box). Don’t forget to vacuum :P
-Viz
Sun/MySQL should consider leveraging Sun’s network.com environment and make money by offering MySQL “in the cloud” instead of forking enterprise/community.
oh well, glad there is postgre
I don’t think this is as serious as it’s being made out to be. I’m sure MySQL Community Edition will be just as great as it has always been. It sounds to me like the things they will be close-sourcing are going to be the kind of administrative “nice-ities” that a small-time sysadmin over 1 or 2 MySQL servers wouldn’t even bother using anyway, but could provide a lot of benefit for large enterprises with several sysadmins coordinating on hundreds of MySQL Servers. And if you fall somewhere in between, you can probably get similar functionality by writing your own script, or starting a Sourceforge project to coordinate writing your own addon program since there isn’t going to be any sort of artificial restrictions put on the Community Edition.
So, basically, it’s just close-sourcing new addons (I hope only new ones). And even then, the functionality is still there, you just have to write your own interface. MySQL isn’t going to get any worse, it will still be as great as ever, and the Community will still see improvements to the database engine.
And, I might add, MySQL has such a huge community around it, that if the changes are any worse than I previously described, then I’m pretty confident that it will get forked. So I’m not worried.
I’m not sure I get the big deal. A MySQL backup module? This seems like a rather pointless thing to spend money on. What’s wrong with mysqldump, cron and regular backups of the filesystem?
If more things continue to be close-sourced making the community edition unusable then that is a different question. Where did the bulk of the code come from? Sun employees getting paid or contributions from the OSS community. If most of it came from the employees then either buy the enterprise version or switch to something else. If it was primarily written by the community but they want to charge big bucks for it then someone can fork the last open version. I suppose someone can do that either way but would it be right?
This approach of having an enterprise version and a free version is a tried and true formula….for short and medium term cash flow. It is also tried and true formula for long-term brand degradation.
For years, I was a RedHat fan. As Fedora split off and started becoming less and less useful, I got more and more frustrated. Last week I switched to Ubuntu Linux. It has been wonderful so far. Granted, it took 8 years,
Canonical Software (Canonical is to Ubuntu what MySQL AB was to MySQL) has differentiated themselves from RedHat by saying that there will never be a paid enterprise version.
In my opinion, since RedHat split RHEL from Fedora, they have lost their dominance for mindshare in the broadest base of users. It left a huge void that is increasingly being filled by Canonical Software.
Similarly, I think that the notion of MySQL going “enterprise” will be a tremendous boon to PostgreSQL and SQLite. Even if Sun does not change anything else for most people, the developers will perceive that they are pulling a “RedHat”, and thus will make PostgreSQL and SQLite more attractive. Even before this acquisition, PostgreSQL and SQLite have more business-friendly licenses than MySQL ever did.
Sun has to engage in some serious damage control. A significant chunk of that billion dollar valuation was the huge developer community that came with MySQL (e.g. via the LAMP stack). If they even look like they are going to start screwing those guys over, they will switch to PostgreSQL.
Tim » Blog Archive » Sun Microsystems Gets Stupid
That’s a damn shame.
I knew the merger was trouble and now here is the truth.
MySQL is going to die away because of this. Nobody is going to pay for the Enterprise edition when they could just as easily go by SQL Server or Oracle.
A sad day for the open source community.
Time for a new fork?
Netty: MySQL not so open » Dever's Blog
Nobody should be surprised, it was only a matter of time before SUN destroyed MySQL like every other company they have touched.
The great thing about software and open source?
There will ALWAYS be a replacement!
As a consultant I make recommendations to move from enterprise databases to mySQL. Given the strength of the community and developers. If they leave as was stated what happens to the product? If the split fosters a try before you buy then it is a good thing. However if it becomes a stripped down version its like getting a car with no air conditioning. People will start looking somewhere else. As a DBA consultant I could no longer recommend it for start-ups and small businesses as a viable solution long term. Unfortunately I think we all knew this was going to happen, but just not this quickly. Sun is plucking the gold teeth right out of mySQL’s mouth!
If you actually read Marten Mickos’ reply (http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=525246&cid=23098626) in the Slashdot story, you will see that you guys have got the wrong idea.
Marten, what’s different about backup other than that you can easily charge for it? What makes it unique from any other noncore aspect?
> That means these critical features will be tested by only a few of their customers
Sun just bought MySQL. Sun has a QA department. You don’t leave all the testing to the end customers.
it’s funny to see all the piranhas and sharks jumping in the waters of the dolphins…
why do they say “Sun is close sourcing MySQL”?? … MySQL was, is and is going to be open source, under the GPL. Nothing has changed, nothing is going to change.
New features are going to be added to the Enterprise version, none are going to be removed from the GPL version.
If backup wasn’t there on the GPL version and everyone was fine with that, why is it a problem now that Sun wants to make their code for their paying customers?… if the freetards needed the backup parts, why haven’t they done it so far?… go ahead, it’s open source, do it… why whine now?… or maybe you want to whine that OracleDB is closed source too?…
I agree with the previous comment that “Everyone wants a pony, but no one wants to clean up the shit”… and it seems like no one wants to have to pay for it to be cleaned either
For all the people blaming Sun for this, Marten has said that this decision was
made by MySQL before the Sun acquisition, and that – if anything – Sun are likely to influence it in the other direction.
Again, J. Schwartz has publicly committed to having all of Sun’s software as open-source. Up until now their actions have largely backed their words on that point. Time will tell what will happen with this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they ultimately return to a model where everything is GPL and available to everyone.
I don’t understand why people are crying about MySQL’s decision. How is this different than what many others, sendmail in particular, do? Entities that truly need the new features will be delighted to pay for the enterprise level features. The hobbyists, who use MySQL to catalog their MP3 and porno collection, are the ones who cry the loudest but need the enterprise features the least.
As long as they don’t remove existing features from the open source version, what is the problem?
So now we can forget MySQL and use PostgreSQL like we should have all along?
I’m really unhappy because of that news.
I though that it’ll get better but it’s not :(((
MySQL: Sun inverte modelo e vai passar a oferecer alguns novos recursos exclusivamente para a versão enterprise
“As a Sun shareholder, I couldn’t be more disapointed in this decision.”
Alex, if you indeed a Sun shareholder, you are most certainly accustomed to disappointment by now.
“they seem determined to put a bullet in their own head through their not-understanding of the model” – I love comments like this about corporation CEOs from internet nobodies.
MySQL 5.1 τελικά τον ΙοÏνιο με γκÏίνια « Altervedo’s Weblog
Sun’s move should not be unexpected to anyone. It doesn’t mean they are evil, it just means they live in the real world.
At the end of the day, we all need to get paid. Even within the open source community, people have bills. We might all like to be idealists and work on a project just because we enjoy it, but that isn’t going to put clothes on your back or keep your house warm during the winter. You still need to find a way to make some money.
Characterizing this move as detrimental to Sun’s Enterprise customers, while possibly true, is hardly the point. You’re upset because you potentially won’t have access to useful features for free anymore. Sun is making this move because they feel that there is revenue to be made off of this model. Whether or not they are right, creating side arguments is disingenuous at best. The issue continues to be that programmers want to get paid for work that has value. Open Source works only so long as 1) development time is perceived to be no-cost, and 2) direct value is perceived to be >= 0.
Businesses are in business to make money. Businesses that participate in open-source efforts do so because it has value to them: goodwill, market disruption, undercutting competitors … This is not to demean the philanthropic value of such efforts, just pointing out that we live in a capitalistic world, and companies (particularly successful ones) behaving capitalistically isn’t really news, nor should it be surprising.
As a programmer I’ll happily give away my services all day every day, provided that my grocer is willing to give me groceries, my doctor is willing to work for free, my car-mechanic donates his time at not cost …
Hmmm, well that clarifies matters and convinces me that I am on the right course. I supported open-source. I worked for FOSS for long hours at comparatively low pay, because my personal need is a feeling that I am making things a little easier for the next guy. I had enough misgivings about the original MySQL license and business model that I put most of my effort and learning elsewhere.
I never did get involved with Java in any great way, and I used PostgreSQL more often than MySQL. As far as I know, despite prejudiced benchmarks on both sides, they perform on the same order of magnitude for large-scale apps. This move by SUN may mean more PostgreSQL jobs for me, and I have no problem with that. I always did admire the ‘do one thing well’ approach of the Postmaster folks.
And it isn’t ‘I want a pony.’ from the developers who spent their own time helping MySQL become a great DB. It’s more like, ‘Mother kicked me in the tummy.’ For most of us who help one open-source project or another, money is a renewable resource and time is not.
That’s why you already see the calls to fork().
Couldn’t someone just fork the MySQL codebase and start a new development stream? If enough people a pissed about this, I don’t see why someone hasn’t suggested this? If the open source movement truly has enough critical mass behind it (including the alternative commercial ventures which provide consulting around MySQL) then they should be able to far outstrip MySQL as far as new features are concerned.
Could we call it MyOpenSQL?
ralpress.org » Blog Archive » Dolphin unfriendly?
Well, I just completed in the last few months a few ports to MySql and feel foolish for doing them now…
I moved a few databases for clients from paid licenses of Oracle and MSSQL to MySql in order to take advantage of the power of Linux. Which “we – my client base” feels has certainly reached a level of “commercializm” in a world of open source that makes it the correct choice for small and medium businesses. This opinion/perception is what the OSS community has been working for from its inception; And the OSS community has to understand that it does take a LONG TIME to obtain/reach/attain such a perception by business at large. So ten (10) years may seem like a long time, but it is not. Heck, Microsoft took its initial 10 years to start its conquest of the world, and “they – Microsoft, Oracle, HP, IBM etc etc” — the establishment has always been wary of this very perception taking hold — as it would truly change the control and power base of the industry. Well this move by one of the pillars of LAMP, MySql, in additon to all of the buyouts that are happening in OSS is exactly what the ‘establishment’ desires in order to maintain the control that it has (Status Quo) — IF ALL of OSS projects (companies) stay the course — OSS will see a dramatic change in their companies and revenue in the next 5 to 10 years… but this may not happen because all of the ‘established’ companies are money hungry and collectively they want OSS to fail or to be “absorbed” before this very perception of OSS sticks, as THE WAY TO GO with operating systems, databases, tools, and the gold — products on the LINUX platform. It seems Europe has embraced OSS and OSS projects should beware that there are many exectutives who want OSS to fail to this day.
The reasons to finally move to LAMP is it finally has the OS, tools, apps, etc for a small business to grow to enterprise without looking back and dealing with the thousands of bugs which use to be in Linux and the general LAMP architecture. In my opinion, the past 10 years has shown that open source is far better than the closed option and provides end users a far better security of business continuity and self direction than a closed environment. How many times has a company been forced or blind sided by a Microsoft update that took all of the systems down — this simply never happened in Linux/OSS or even in closed UNIX systems.
With respect to the Database, MySql finally matches immediate requirements of small/meduim database requirements and this recent split simply removes the luster to move to MySql…. If these ports are successful, as a working business, any businessman would certainly purchase and/or contribute and/or donate to the OSS developers. OSS needed to prove that it works reliably and without issues, as OSS products had no pressure to deliver and/or liability to deliver to a paying customer like Oracle and/or MSSQL (or the many other database products) — now the establishment sees that OSS has matured, thus, they want to kill it as stated above before “your projects start to take over the world….. “. Myself, I will have to rethink these ports, as we obviously still have the originals and OSS may die at its birth….
MySQL to support few features only in Enterprise edition | l . i . n . k . e . r
I’m using the latest Postgresql, version 8.3. It’s incredibly fast. Would I switch to Mysql IF it was faster than Postgresql? NO. At this point, speed comparisons between Postgresql and Mysql are kinda pointless since each DB can be tweeked to perform as well as or better than the other. I think it boils down to what you are comfortable using since both are capable databases.
But just in case, I’ll relate my ideas about speed.
From what I can tell, if you properly use indexes along with your select queries in Postgresql, IT WILL FLY. What I’ve seen from anecdotes across the web, after switching to Postgresql, DB performance increased versus Mysql. Google it to see for yourself.
Text search is also a breeze with built in support for TSearch2. We’re talking ms times to build results from a 500,000 entry table.
As well as being open source with an active community developing the product, it’s also laden with features which I haven’t even bothered to look into to further ring out performance gains.
But I’m a newb and have been using Postgresql since 2005. So take my input with a grain of salt.
Maybe many Mysql users are like me and should give Postgresql a try?
H
Just announced: MySQL to launch new features only in MySQL Enterprise — Instant Web Meetings.COM - Video Conference, Collaboration, E Learning, Unified Communications
Sean’s Mental Walkabout » Blog Archive » links for 2008-04-18
Iuventus stultorum magister » Blog Archive » Sun Microsystems in now in my shit list
http://ensarm.blogspot.com/
@Lenny Forziati (because I just read the first line of your comment, nothing personal) and many others…
this wasn’t done by Sun, it was planned to be done before the acquisition… this is MySQL’s doing, but stupid people jump to conclusions before taking the time to actually read the article and the comments from someone as Mickos… and just reveal themselves as the fools they are, and how zealotism makes people blind… the same zealotism I have seen since a long time from Linus Torvalds and most linux users…
Sun isn’t an enemy, Solaris and most IP from Sun is open source and the company is not “eveel” like you think… It’s a company like Red Hat and old MySQL that has to make a living out of open source… But of course, this doesn’t mean that Linus and other will hesitate to attack them every single possible time just to pressure them and incentivate FUD against Sun and Solaris and everything they do….
so, the answer to Microsoft made FUD is Linux made FUD?.. thanks, but I’ll pass from that =)
go Sun.. keep on making great technology, keep on making Linuxtards jealous, keep on going
most of you don’t even know what is being added to MySQL enterprise that won’t be on standard MySQL…. you just assume it’s something you want, but that you can’t get for free… most of you don’t even know what the differences are between both versions now… you really should forbid yourselves from posting things when you don’t know what you are saying
BTW, just so all you ignorants know, Sun is one of the few companies that have made PostgreSQL be what it is now…. for a long time Sun has committed resources to enhance it, add features, and all that… just ask Postgres’ Josh Berkus about it =)
please, gather up your information correctly before blindly jumping into conclusions by reading the title of and article like this… and writing your misunderstood information on /. and other sites… it will make you look less like fools (most of the time)…
It is quite unfortunate that MySQL is going this way. But hopefully let see what they will come out with. We’ve always enjoy it the way it has been. I hope SUN will consider and not pull the trigger at their own own RISK.
MySQL the Baby of Open source Community how do you treat us this way………oh MySQL
MySQL’s non-GPL adventure | All things Sysadmin
@Phobos
We know what the difference is between MySQL Community and MySQL Enterprise. That’s why we are posting here.
You don’t want to see and hear that we have no possitive feelings about MySQL/Sun anymore now that they have decided to withold features for the community.
The community is very beneficial for MySQL: so many testers (so little code contributions :-)). And in return, software.
But not anymore. Some features are just for paying customers.
Bye MySQL.
MySQL Kodları Azıcık Kapanacak « HER BOK VAR
Karl Katzke | Puppies, PHP, and other geekery
MySQL menos libre … consecuencias | OSBIZ
William, have you not read what I wrote?
this was not Sun’s doing, it was planned for MySQL before de acquisition from Sun… so just because they wanted to validate their pay version and make it a source of income to make a living you are putting your back on them?… that’s why open source has not succeeded and most likely won’t succeed for a long time… people don’t care for things being “open source” or being royalty free, patent free, IP free…. they just don’t want to pay for good stuff
and maybe you know what the differences between enterprise and standard MySQL are, but don’t talk for others, that clearly have no idea
Sun cerrará el código de MySQL « El Pequeño Gran Rincón de la Libertad
I’m considering switching to PostgreSQL now.
When i hear that Mysql will drop features for GPL, it’s very dissapointing!!
I read this in the link that lead me here:
“Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 16, @06:55PM”
Is “Anonymous Coward” the nick of the person that wrote this…? mmm…
Anyway, a lot of negative comments here! Well, I think that backup & recovery is important enough for a company to take responsibility on its support and maintenance behind it and that, therefore a price should be put on this. So I just think it is a good decision made.
On the other hand, there seems to be several business experts here about what is “the right” business model… I would say not Sun nor MySQL are unsuccessful companies, they probably have a notion of what they are doing and why they are doing it. Furthermore, I never heard from Sun or MySQL that there are any plans of moving towards close coding, but rather an interpretation of a slide by someone named “anonymous coward”.
Iam an employee of MySQL, therefore a Sun Microsystems employee, I am proud of it, I am happy about how the Sun acquisition went. I think we need time and I think you should judge our management and their decisions once you see the results in the long run. Give us a year and then evaluate how it went. So far our site’s downloads ( http://www.mysql.com ) increased around a 20%. So not everyone things everything is so terrible.
Sometimes, if you just see part of the picture it may be difficult to judge a decision, specially when a company strives to satisfy both community and paying customers. Why should a customer pay if they can get most critical items free? How can a small company get a stable, reliable database if they are just starting off and don’t have the funds to do so? These two questions represent a trade off that MySQL faces directly. It is difficult to have a positive outcome on both sides of our role as an open source database leader company, but I honestly think we don’t do such a bad job at it. And I am very confident about the present and future satisfaction of our customers.
Serge’s Technology View » Blog Archive » Is MySQL not so open anymore?
Sun cerrará el código de MySQL « Webeando en la red
Log Buffer #93: a Carnival of the Vanities for DBAs
MySQL Kodlarý Azýcýk Kapanacak - TurkForum.Net
Everything is a Freaking DNS problem
Hivy got blogged » Blog Archive » Τι γίνεται μετά την εξαγοÏά της MySQL από την SUN
UbuntuX » Sun cerrará parte del código de MySQL
Programmers need to get eat, people. Otherwise, the work slows down immensly. If open-source development on such a powerful and resilient database as MySQL can be funded by a commercial “Enterprise” edition (that may include certain non-FOSS plugins), I say more power to them. Development will be funded, and these plugins will be available to the people who need them.
MySQL should consider this and have a re-think before betraying the community that help build it. Open source community an added advantage little code contributors but many testers this yield a robust DBMS.
Donot destroy the version that community has always been enjoying. there are many added services that can bring money for you not going full blast commercial…….MySQL/SUN dont let your coming together brakes this big open source family…..remember PosgreSQL is there waiting for you………
Phobos,
The issue I have with this has nothing to do with money and everything to do with freedom.
MySQL is in the position they are because their software is open source. You can make money on open source software, so if they want to sell their software, that is fine.
My problem with them is that they want to not make their sources available to everyone.
If they continue to choose to not make sources available, then they will loose market share, since they will be alienating the majority of the people who deploy their databases for them.
And, it is not OK to cripple open source software with a basic version for free and a version that one needs to pay for. If your services are good, people who need support will buy it. I don’t even have a problem with them charging for the compiled versions of their programs as long as they provide the full sources to everyone.
They have had many bug reports and patches submitted by many people who are not MySQL employees. They need to respect the community that turned them into the 800 pound gorilla and not alienate it.
Open Journal » Blog Archive » Su MySQL lo spettro del closed source?
Damián Digital » Archivo » Sun cerrará el código de MySQL
Johnny.
The dual versioning (a GPL one and a commercial one) is a business model used by most open source companies now. Ask Red Hat and Novell, for example. You’ll find plenty if you look for it.
the GPL’d MySQL is NOT a “basic” version. It’s a full version with all the capabilities MySQL can offer. Tell me what kind of restriction does the GPL’d MySQL impose to you?… any limits?…
The pay-per-support is another open source business model also used a lot by many companies. Most of the time, when you pay, you get both additional features and support. Both those models don’t necessarily have to come together tho.
and this time, it’s just an additional plug-in that is going to be added (“added”, as in extra or additional being the key word here) to the non-GPL version… it’s not like they are crippling the GPL version in any way. Most of the community won’t even use them, as has been talked about before; they don’t need it. So they won’t get as many bug reports and patches submitted as with the standardly used functions. They are not alienating or betraying anyone. It’s just something additional that only some people need. The same kind of people that would buy an Oracle database instead of installing an open source MySQL or PostreSQL.
Algunas mejoras solo disponibles en MySQL Enterprise at Tod-OS.com :: Te ponemos al dia
Sun screws up everything it touches.
First…Java is the most bloated piece of crap next to M$ itself.
Second…They bought eGate from See Beyond, eliminated Monk, now we’re forced to program in bloat-ware.
Third…Now they’re going to screw up MySQL.
LEAVE OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS ALONE. WE DON’T WANT YOU HERE!!!
By the way…how’s Solaris holding up?
I agree 100 % that this is a step in the wrong direction.
It’s totally ignores what makes open source software successful:
– No software lock in; If something doesn’t exist or doesn’t work you can fix it
– No vendor lock in; If a software vendor goes out of business or gets too unreasonable you can change the vendor
– More users with makes the code more tested
– More developers, which gives the software longer lifetime and increases innovation.
– As long as you are a community driven open source project, there is little chance that the code will be forked into multiple projects
There are a lots of other reasons, but all have the same thing in common; As soon as you close one critical part of the software, the line between closed source and open source disappears together with many of the prior advantages. You become a vendor that makes crippleware. No one really wants to use crippleware and while people try to portray it as balancing open source ideals with business sense, it doesn’t.
Note however that this is a MySQL management decision, not a decision
that is in line with what Sun has been saying since the MySQL
acquisition. As far as I know, Sun bought MySQL to grow it’s market
and establish Sun as the leading open source/free software
company. This decision is a step directly in the opposite direction.
I hope we will soon see some clarifications from Sun of what is the
real future of the MySQL server.
You can find more things about this topic on my blog at:
http://monty-says.blogspot.com
Monty
Former CTO of MySQL AB, now with Sun’s CTO Organisation
Vamos con un picadito | Blog de Tinchio
I haven’t read a lot about this, but I think the most constructive response would be to develop an independent, and superior set of enterprise features around MySQL.
These could be used in the official community edition, but not in the enterprise version ( presumably the enterprise version is not GPL ).
Sun then have to choose whether they want to use these features, in their enterprise version, in which case they would have to GPL their own enterprise features.
SUN compró a MySQL =o - Página 2 - psicofxp.com
The whole story about online backup | Integribase.com
If they do this, it will be the beginning of the end of MySQL Community.
oriolrius lifestream » The whole story about online backup
Tim Anderson’s ITWriting - Tech writing blog » Schwartz vs Mickos on MySQL and open source
Commercial Open Source: The Future is Hybrid, by Fabrizio Capobianco | Commercial Open Source Software
Noticias PHP » Blog Archive » Nuevas funcionalidades para MySQL Enterprise
MySQL, MyPresentation, MyThoughts | SyncEXPERT :: Synchronizes Data in a Bliss
Oddments » Blog Archive » OSS Business Model?
The Amazing Blog : MySQL Enterprise
» Alper Somuncu: Sun, MySQL kaynak kodlarını kapatıyor mu? Bicak.org: Bir baÅŸka WordPress blogu.
451 CAOS Theory » Finding the right balance - MySQL’s changing development model
Ingres Technology Blog » Blog Archive » Establishing trust with your open source community
MySQL Kodları Kısmen Kapanacak · Türk Baron
They already did that when building a Carrier Grade edition for cluster. That indeed also was a product where they had customers paying for unstable beta products. Exactly the reason why I totally dropped proprietary products in the first place.
Sun is serious about Open Source and the MySQL Community « JZ Talk Blogger
Nur noch MySQL Enterprise mit vollen Features « Datenbanken@FAU
jcole’s weblog: Jeremy Cole’s take on life. » Blog Archive » On “open core” versus Open Source
Oracle may "fork itself" with recent MySQL moves | Greediocracy