On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 02:53 +0000, Joseph Masoud wrote: >> >> On 14 Dec 2009, at 22:01, Ashley Sheridan <ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 15:59 -0600, Philip Thompson wrote: >> > >> >> On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:51 AM, Lester Caine wrote: >> >> >> >>> Lenin wrote: >> >>>> You might also like this: >> >>>> Come on Monty - Lukas Smith http://bit.ly/5lmwwD >> >>> >> >>> I've been watching some of this debate with interest, but I'll >> >>> stay with a database that has none of the baggage that MySQL has >> >>> always had, and IS currently replacing Oracle in many large sites :) >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Lester Caine - G8HFL >> >> >> >> Do share your db of interest... (and please don't say MSSQL). >> >> >> >> ~Philip >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > MSSQL has nearly brought me to tears and could have easily made me >> > bald >> > through hair pulling! >> > >> > I have to say, I do like MySQL, it's very flexible and fast, and being >> > able to choose different storage engines for different tables in the >> > same DB is brilliant! I really don't think there's anything to overly >> > worry about from Oracle, as the two DB's have different audiences. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ash >> > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk >> > >> > >> Unfortunately, I do not share your optimism. I believe that Oracle >> taking over MySQL would be a disaster of epic proportions. >> >> The "different audiences" theory has been bought up several times but >> I haven't [to date] seen a sound justification for it. Oracle wants >> everyone to use ... Oracle, I can't see how this "different audiences" >> theory is going to make Oracle promote MySQL, perhaps someone can tell >> me? >> >> I don't think the EU would be able to do anything about it. The >> powerful companies almost always get what they want. >> >> I don't think Monty wouldn't be doing this unless he felt that >> something [put mildly] bad is coming. >> >> What has happened, has happened. Trying to figure out who is to blame >> for this mess is pointless. Ideally, It would be nice if Oracle took >> its claws off MySQL and found another project to ruin. >> >> Note: I am *not* trying to spread FUD > > I've always been led to believe that you go with MySQL if you want speed, Oracle if you want data integrity. I know they both handle each one admirably, but Oracle is known more for guarding the data against mishaps and MySQL is known more for performance. I just think it may be a little early to be condemning Oracle yet, we should wait a little to at least see what stance they have on the whole thing. And before you ask, no I have no connection to Oracle, I'm an avid MySQL fan! > > Thanks, > Ash > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > Let's not forget one of the biggest decisions on why people choose MySQL over Oracle/MSSQL.... it's way cheap. So cheap they're nearly giving it away. Oh wait! They ARE giving it away. You start to piss people off whenever you take away their working, free option. Also by being open source, you have plenty of people that have the opportunity to work with it. The biggest reason I haven't messed with Oracle (except in college for my db class) is that it's expensive. Don't underestimate how cheap people are. There's your "different audience." ~Philip
