[ale] $1B for MySQL !!!

[Sid Lane]

FWIW, you're pretty close - the website is ~95% MySQL at this point and the
remaining 5% (Oracle 10) would be if not for developer bandwidth (i.e.
MySQL-ifying existing classes != new content -> != new ad sales -> !=
developer/qa time).  we also have several back-office apps running various
versions of Oracle (8.1 - 10), MySQL (one's still 3.23 for vendor support -
don't ask...) and SQL/Server (not by my choice).  I covered all this in the
MySQL replication presentation I did a couple of yrs ago...

the "channel" side is (to my knowledge) still pretty much all Oracle w/some
3rd party SQL/Server apps as well (no MySQL I'm aware of) but as your friend
said we operate almost completely independently of each other (internal
political stuff I'd get in trouble for discussing not to mention boring you
to death...)

I don't think any company uses only one database vendor exclusively unless
they're a clueless windoze shop.

now you know and that's 1/2 the battle...

On Jan 18, 2008 9:00 AM, Jeff Lightner <jlightner at water.com> wrote:

> Isn't MySQL GPL?  If so it can't "go away" can it?  Someone else can use
> the OSS stuff and continue on even if there is a commercial version
> can't they?
>
> FYI:  I found out over the summer from a friend who does development at
> the Weather Channel that not all their stuff is on MySQL - I think it is
> just the web related stuff.   It sounded like the teams that do that and
> the rest of the systems don't really interact much.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Mike
> Harrison
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 9:26 AM
> To: Michael B. Trausch
> Cc: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] $1B for MySQL !!!
>
> > You forgot about PostgreSQL... :-)
>
> vacuum analyze.
>
> PostgreSQL is more of a real database engine ala Sybase, Oracle
> etc.. than MySQL, and takes a little more time and thought to work with.
> MySQL's power is it's simplicity for basic web-apps, it just happens
> to (currently, did not always) scale really really well.
>
> And PHP and MySQL just work so darn well together out of the box.
> I know it'll work with PostgreSQL, and I should probably try it again.
> Many moons ago I used Perl and PostgreSQL a lot, and it was "rocket
> science" getting them to talk to each other and Apache. Guess it just
> left
> a bad taste in my mouth.
>
> > to the other, especially for applications that do not use a database
> > abstraction layer of one form or another, and simply call the database
> > directly.
>
> Which I really, REALLY should be doing more of. I normally hate
> abstraction layers, one more layer of code for things to break in
> or troubleshoot, But it sure helps when the client says:
> We're using PostgreSQL, or DB2 or..
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> ----------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential
> information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are
> not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of
> the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
> have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply
> immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and
> delete it. Thank you.
> ----------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...