Adam Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/help-saving-mysql.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinM1 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/help-saving-mysql.html Me neither. There will always be an open source db available for us to use. So long as it works well, I couldn't care less about what brand it is, whether MySQL, postgreSQL, or anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 You know what, I like MySQL, but fuck Monty. They sold out to Sun. What'd they think was gonna happen? I mean wtf, I randomly googled and found that Sun bought MySQL for about $1b. They saw $$ and gave into it and jumped into the corp game. It was inevitable that they would be swallowed up like this and they knew it from the get-go but at the time decided the $$ was more important. And now they want people to "save" it? Fuck them. I like MySQL, but where is our guarantee Mr. Monty won't just go running after $$ signs again? I think Oracle probably will either kill it or turn it into closed source or something. Sad pandas crying everywhere. And you can thank Mr. Monty for that, not Sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 If he wanted to retain control over MySQL then he shouldn't have sold it. If he wanted to ensure that MySQL forever remained open source he should have added that clause when he sold it. If Oracle wanted to de-open source MySQL it's their own business. It's certainly none of Widenius', Stallman's or the European Council's. The legally binding promises he wants Oracle to make are things he should have originally demanded before selling it. It's pretty lame coming back now still wanting to decide shit unless he is willing to pay a couple of [mb]illion dollars (or whatever it's worth). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roopurt18 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I haven't actively used MySQL for a project in almost two years now anyways. Postgres is much nicer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keldorn Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I cant see the internet thrive the way it is using proprietary databases, Its the main reason why most use PHP,linux, mysql. Its free, having to pay licenses and all that is too cost prohibitive since it creates barriers to entry for the smaller players, ultimately it would hurt the economy, so there is good reason why these mergers can be blocked by court orders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 16, 2009 Author Share Posted December 16, 2009 I think as others are pointing out though there's always going to be a free, just as good alternative available to those entry companies; with the larger businesses and enterprises willing to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roopurt18 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 My understanding is that Microsoft Sql Server can not be used on web servers (or external servers) that meet a certain criteria due Microsoft's license for the product. I've never looked into this myself, but it is something my boss has mentioned in the past. Can anyone in the know shed any light on that particular topic? It seems like a stupid move on Microsoft's part and I'm too lazy to look into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinM1 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 My understanding is that Microsoft Sql Server can not be used on web servers (or external servers) that meet a certain criteria due Microsoft's license for the product. I've never looked into this myself, but it is something my boss has mentioned in the past. Can anyone in the know shed any light on that particular topic? It seems like a stupid move on Microsoft's part and I'm too lazy to look into it. http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/licensing-faq.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.