Just over a year ago, I chose to use Movable Type for my blogging software because of its support for PostgreSQL. As of this afternoon, after performing some preliminary investigation into whether or not I should upgrade, I discovered that, much to my dismay, version 5 of Movable Type no longer supports PostgreSQL as a database backend. Six Apart states that they now will support only MySQL in the open-source version, and adding Oracle and MSSQL to their enterprise version. Oracle, I understand. I also understand MSSQL, but still have difficulty understanding how so many will entrust their enterprise-level anything to anything Microsoft. As for MySQL (and in a somewhat similar manner to MSSQL), however, I cannot help but ask why? Why choose a product that is technologically inferior to PostgreSQL? Why choose a product that will possibly be mired in licensing issues or, worse, may not be around in its current incarnation in the near future? Why are so many attracted to MySQL when in all my experience (admittedly minimal) it is nothing more than a toy, a training "database?"
Good piece, Gary. All valid points.
Oracle has done little to nothing in order to improve the databases they've acquired over the years. They seem to only want to maintain the current installations instead of growing them. That leaves MySQL in the same land as Times Ten (in-memory DB) and others.
I completely expect MySQL to fade off into the sunset like so many other promising technologies acquired by Oracle. By grabbing MySQL, Larry Ellison has basically bolstered his "installation" count and little more.
Michael,
Thank you, and thank you for taking the time to comment on my post.
> I completely expect MySQL to fade off into the sunset like so many other promising
> technologies acquired by Oracle. By grabbing MySQL, Larry Ellison has basically
> bolstered his "installation" count and little more.
I have always been pleased with my decision to not use MySQL -- if for no other reason than what you're predicting.
-- Gary
"Oracle has done little to nothing in order to improve the databases they've acquired over the years. They seem to only want to maintain the current installations instead of growing them. That leaves MySQL in the same land as Times Ten (in-memory DB) and others."
Oracle acquired Innobase (maker of Innodb, the primary transactional engine for MySQL), which has post acquisition substantially improved in terms of both features and performance.
People in the Pg community seem to like to complain about MySQL constantly, sometimes deservedly, sometimes not. One way or another most of those complaining do not have the knowledge to do so effectively. This is unprofessional and reflects badly on the community. I suggest that such behavior does a disservice to those of us pushing for pg adoption.
Please stop with the fud.
Rob,
"People in the Pg community seem to like to complain about MySQL constantly, sometimes deservedly, sometimes not. One way or another most of those complaining do not have the knowledge to do so effectively. This is unprofessional and reflects badly on the community. I suggest that such behavior does a disservice to those of us pushing for pg adoption."
How so? I disagree that blog entries such as the one I penned reflects badly on the Pg community. What's wrong with questioning the popularity (and sustainability) of any piece of software (or anything for that matter)? I simply posed a question asking how MySQL has attained the popularity it currently appears to enjoy when a more stable, technologically-superior, feature-laden PostgreSQL exists.
"Please stop with the fud."
No FUD here! Please tell me where you think MySQL is superior to PostgreSQL?
-- Gary