Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

MySQL 3.20.32a Released Under GPL 131

Rolan writes "It seems that MySQL has been released under the GPL. Though I can't find any stories on it, you can see the 'news' here." We're posting this because lots of people have sent it in, but don't get too excited about it, okay? According to this Linux Today piece sent in by bradsjm, only one older version of MySQL is being released under GPL. A good start, and worthy of applause, but not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MySQL 3.20.32a Released Under GPL

Comments Filter:
  • "...if you use it for your website, you are encouraged to pay for it to get support and to support further development."

    And the same is said of software from the FSF.. Personally, if I was making money from using free software, I would feel a certain obligation to give some of those profits back to the people who created it, either for further development, or even just so they can have fun with seeing some money for once. And if you're not making any money off of it and can't afford to send them anything, there's no skin off of anyone's back.

    Isn't life wonderful?

  • Think of a license more like "I own all rights to this code, but I will allow you to do xxxx with it". They still own all rights to the more recent code. Technically, if you make a change based on the code for this version, you must either release your changes under GPL or contact TcX to negotiate other conditions on a personal level. Since their personal copy is owned by them, they don't have to agree to the license, so all changes they've made to the code are theirs, not the GPL virus's
  • No.

    A copyright holder can apply the GPL and any number of other licenses to his own work. He can't take back the GPL on a version once it's released, but is not required to use it on subsequent versions. However, this entirely ignores the matter of contributions. If you get GPL-ed contributions, you can't change the license on them without the permission of their copyright holders. Some people insist that you sign over the copyright of modifications before they will include them in their source thread, so that they can change the licensing on those modifications later on.

    P.S. I just got back from 2 weeks in Alaska and was offline all that time



  • by HoserHead ( 599 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @02:21PM (#1717750)
    To understand how the GPL works, you must first understand how copyright works. As the owner of the copyright for a given piece of software, you can legally say exactly what the licensing terms are, and for whom. As an example, you can give it a license something like the following:


    If your name is Bill, you may use Foo Product under the terms of the BSD License.

    If your name is Joe, you may use Foo Product under the terms of the GPL.

    In any other cases, the licensing terms for this product are dictated by the QPL.

    Given, of course, that you define what the BSD License, the GPL, and QPL are, that is probably a valid license. Also, you can go ahead and release it to your friend Sue under a completely different license, and you don't have to tell anyone about it.

    And then, 6 months later, you decide that Foo Product's licensing terms were a bit too restrictive, and you want Joe /and/ Bill to have rights to it under the BSD License, and everyone else to have it under the GPL. You can do that. The previous license still stands, though - so those people who got it under the rights of the previous license still have those rights.

    And then, of course, you have to follow the terms of the license. In this case, Monty's releasing an old, unsupported version of MySQL under the GPL. This doesn't negate the fact it was under a non-Free license before, and it doesn't change the licensing to anything else. However, anything you do with this new GPL-licensed MySQL must be done under the terms of the GPL. Later on, Monty can change the license again, and you don't gain any more, nor do you lose, rights to it than you had under the GPL. Unless some sort of termination clause or other such thing is built right into the license, a piece of software is licensed as it is forever.

  • If I remember correctly, MySQL still doesn't support referential integrity......so, technically speaking, you really shouldn't even call it a database.
  • I was at the MySQL: A faster database engine presentation at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention in Monterey just a few days ago, and the developers announced that they were indeed releasing 3.20 under the GPL The newer versions remain under their usual (free unless you are selling it) license.

    To the extent that they said it themselves, it's a sure thing.

  • Posted by Synsthe:

    Bad Idea. Than we'd have a barrage of people once they figured it out running around going, "First human post!", or simply "Second post", and so on and so forth..

    Might as well just let them have their fun, it's obvious they don't get to go out anywhere to have any sort of real life anyways. ;-)

    Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
  • by mikemcc ( 4795 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @02:46PM (#1717756)
    Although I don't have any hard data to either confirm or deny your statement, I will accept as fact that Postgres has better performance on really large databases.

    To me that's not a relevant selling point, while MySQL's speed is. I'm using PHP and MySQL to automate my company's intranet - content management, remote publishing, workflow, that sort of thing. The quantity of data that needs to reside in a database is relatively modest, so Postgres' superior performance at the high end is a benefit that I will never see. Our "Current Clients" or "Job Openings" databases just aren't going to get so big that MySQL strains under the load.

    >But for real databases of actual size...

    These are real databases, because they are storing real corporate information, reducing duplication of data, improving consistency, and generally making my fellow employees' work days better. Their actual size is very modest - much smaller than their actual benefit. Different tasks require different tools.

    MySQL's speed does represent an immediate benefit to me, and to my users. Also, because I'm automating workflow, rather than handling financial transactions, I don't miss the features like commits or rollbacks that MySQL leaves out (specifically to increase the db's speed).

    But the real "killer app" for me is the web-based interface to MySQL, phpMyAdmin. [phpwizard.net] This is a truly wonderful utility which has saved me tons of development time. The basic interface permits me to administer MySQL from my browser, and I can crank out customized interfaces on very short notice, just by copying the php scripts to a new directory and commenting out the HTML that produces functions that I don't want to offer to the user. In a relatively "high trust" environment like the company's intranet, MySQL, PHP, and phpMyAdmin have made my job MUCH easier.

    FYI, the makers of phpMyAdmin now have a postgresMyAdmin [phpwizard.net], too, although I've been so happy with MySQL that I don't feel compelled to change.
  • why do so many websites running on Linux use MySQL?

  • as time progresses, the amount of Lamers in the world grows to uncontronable paportions...

    but it would help if i could learn to spell..
  • MySQL is stable(kinda redundant for linux tho :) ) and easy to use.
  • MySQL is a solid web tuned relational database. PostgresSQL is an academic database that implements many features MySQL doesn't but it takes a serious performance hit with all of those features.
  • If you are going to add more hardware for speed, then run MySQL on it and it would be THAT MUCH FASTER.

    I like MySQL's speed, and for me the license is not a problem.
  • Perhaps because Linux isn't the only OS that one might want to use?
  • Not a big deal that MySQL has been GPL'd??? Are you KIDDING?

    This is amazingly cool. Let me lay it out in a simple list with a close-to-home example:
    1. Slashdot uses MySQL
    2. Slashdot occasionally has DB problems
    3. GPL'd software always has source code available
    Conclusion: If MySQL were GPL'd, Slashdot could be made more stable.

    I think we can all agree this is a laudable goal. Just because the GPL'd release is slightly older means nothing. The only reason new releases exist is to fix bugs or add features. Both of these actions are possible to perform against GPL'd software WITHOUT the permission of the original owner.
    Put Hemos through English 101!
    "An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
  • If you have the source, you can make changes to it. [...]. For all those who bitch about those shortcomings, well, now you have the source to a fast database engine and you can do something about it.

    The source of MySQL was available before - I don't know for how long, but at least a year. It was/is not GPL'ed, however.

    Yes, I can spell "code fork" -- but if enough people start building on the old MySQL source, maybe they will eventually catch up to current versions of MySQL in terms of features,

    No need to 'catch up'. The source of the newest version is available, too. Just do to it what you want to and send the patches in.

    performance, and reliability and this might give TCX more reason to go all the way with the GPL.

    Well, if the GPL is the only concern you have, then you are right and you probably have to double that work if you can.

    I, personally, see the main advantage of open source in the ability to improve/fix the source and you already have this with MySQL and the way TcX handles it.

  • Agreed. phpMyAdmin is the slickest tool around for admining MySQL. I like it much better than the Win32 and X based admin tools I have tried, and it works well across the net to admin a DB on a site hosted somethere.

    ** Kyle Cordes ** kyle@kylecordes.com ** http://DiskWise.com [diskwise.com] **

  • I find MySQL to be fast, simple, reliable, and very easy to program for. It handles BLOBs easily, without using an arcane extra API. It is the "guts" behind several of my web sites, including (shameless plug) DiskWise.com [diskwise.com], which is based on PHP and MySQL.
  • Question to any moderators / Rob: Why hasn't this post been moderated down yet? Do we need more moderator points available?

    True, the post he/she is replying to was in error, but this response is just plain insulting.

    Ian Peters
  • GNU Public Virus^WLicense

    Dude, what is the problem with GPL? I thought the concerns were addressed in the last few flame wars. If you don't like it, use something else. If you have a complaint that it 'absorbs' BSD code, uh, there was a defect in the BSD licence, you know, the same defect that allows Apple to take BSD, make changes, put it under its own licence and call it its own, and saving many changes for closed source. Of course this may have changed, but it seems that BSD licence assumes that people are more kind hearted than the GPL licence does.

    I really don't have a problem with companies not using GPL, but many people are wary of any licence in which donated changes can be absorbed and become closed.
  • It just wasen't under the GPL. I believe that under the old scheme, slashdot could still modify the code without caughing up money.
  • Alphas may handle files bigger than 2gb, but the EXT2 filesystem doesn't.

  • Huh?

    Run MySQL - It does nothing, but it does it really, really fast.

    Seriously. If you want to use any of the semi-advanced features from the SQL92 standard, you can't use MySQL.
  • Wouldn't it be great if we could get a *free* win32 port out of this?

  • Guess what.. Postgres should be able to do that.
  • Actually, ext2 handles bigger than 2GB on Alpha.

    It handles up to signed 32-bit on 32-bit arch and signed 64-bit on 64-bit arch.

    With LFS patches, it handles up to signed 64-bit even on 32-bit arch (which is how my dual PII is hosting a 19GB MySQL DB that exists in ext2)

  • Suppose 1000 lamers who check once an hour for new articles. That's an average of one every 3.6 seconds. Even with only 100 such lamers, that's 36 seconds. Not hard at all for one of them to get a first post.

  • Hey people, let's do what Micros~1 does.

    GPL World Domination any-one?


  • Put some clothes on and stop screwing each other- Slashdot is a family site!
  • by mrsam ( 12205 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @06:55PM (#1717805) Homepage

    The copyright holder, the owner of the source code, can use whatever license he/she wants at any time. Now, if someone ELSE takes the source code, they are the ones who have obligations under the GPL.

    The GPL specifies the rights and obligations granted to you from someone else. Unless that someone else also received the GPLed source code, they have no GPL-related obligations whatsoever.

  • I don't hear much on PostgreSql (old Informix) on any of the Linux sites. Maybe we can get a topic going on this. I was completely impressed with it...any real world web database experiences? late.
  • until the moderators mod up the relevent posts. So the lamers will have to wait. A "Sixed post WooWoo" post is not that annoying if the first 5 on-topic posts expends to 100 posts.

  • simple, exactly. But, a compelete well rounded database, I'm not so sure. MySql is good for simple relational databases and most web based designs are, but I really like the extensive functions and custom functions that PostgreSql comes with. To me, it just looks like they are not trying to throw together an optimzed web database handler, but and a solid Oracle competitive relations system.

    To build a killer house you need a solid frame and I think while they might take a performance hit up front...they will definitely make it when the other simple databases try and catch up to their standards once web databases get a little more complex and move away from the "shopping cart" mentality.


  • I doubt that's possible --you can compose the post for 3 hours. If Rob did want to implement it, use the "reply button hit time" instead of the "submet" time, I suggest adding a feature on the posting page. Add a "this is not the first post" sentence for the first 20 posts except the first one, so there would be only one "true" first post and I think half of the people wouldn't waste it.

  • The GPL'd version is 3.20.32a; the version I got with Redhat 6.0 and am still using is 3.21.30. This is so recent that I'd think the logical next step would be just to put the current CVS version under GPL.

    Meanwhile, the PostgreSQL team is adding new features [postgresql.org] at a truly impressive rate. The good effects of having TWO full blown database systems competing with each other in open source can't be underestimated.

  • Nor is it under any other free license, but rather under a relatively liberal, but still non-free license. Noone was saying that only GPL software is free or come with source. You should calm down.
  • because I'm automating workflow, rather than handling financial transactions, I don't miss the features like commits or rollbacks that MySQL leaves out (specifically to increase the db's speed)

    But wouldn't you rather have transactions that not, if there were no speed hit?

    I've been working on the problem of how to do transaction commit/rollback for a long time now (years) and I'm pretty sure I've got a solution. The basic idea has been tested extensively in a dbms I wrote in, hmm, 1989. The goal then was to have automatic rollback to the last commited state of the db in the event of an unexpected termination (crash/reset). In the event, there were thousands of intended and unintended termination incidents none of which ever broke the automatic rollback algorithm. This algorithm, which I call "sync tree" has a few other nice properties including:

    No journal file to maintain (although journalling could be used at the same time)

    Fast - the algorithm performs in near-linear time (vs db size and transaction count) with a very small K.

    Simple - hehe, kind of.

    Can work transparently at the file system level

    Instant recovery - after unexpected termination the system reawakens at the state of the last commit.

    Goodbye auto-fsck - when implemented at the file system level, the file system likewise reawakens in a consistent state and doesn't need to be fsck'd (can you say "instant off"?).

    My next step with this is to hack it into ext2 and try it out, myself as the guinea pig. Is anybody else interested in this project? You can email me at: danielphillips (at) yahoo (dot) com or phillips (at) dowco (dot) com.

  • If you'd actually bothered to READ the BSD license instead of just believing what others tell you it says, you would know that the *BSD license is indeed a 'free' software license. It is arguably more free than the GPL b/c you (as end user) have mroe rights than you do under GPL
  • theoretically anyway. I don't know if they have any decent database software on it to test that, though.
  • by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @12:19PM (#1717821)

    Actually, that isn't such a bad idea. If there was a script that sent a "first post" message, then at least the wouldn't get pleasure (???) of doing it. And the script could generate the messages at -1 automatically so we wouldn't have to see them.

    Maybe the lamers would just go bother some other site...

    /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
  • Has anyone done recent benchmarks comparison between Postgres and MySql. The reason I ask is because the Postgres people look like they are doing a lot of good optimization work recently. MySql will undoubtedly still be faster but it would be interesting to see if the gap is being closed.

  • The catch is that he'd have to make it look like a normal user (randomize the message somewhat), and he couldn't tell us. Otherwise lamers could do a "first real post", and it'd be useless. Yeah, it'd be cool, but he couldn't tell us about it.
  • I took a (admittedly very quick) look on their website, and couldn't find reference to how the other versions of MySQL are licensed. What is their current licensing scheme for these other versions?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    If you have the source, you can make changes to it. MySQL has the reputation for being fast, but it lacks a lot of features. For all those who bitch about those shortcomings, well, now you have the source to a fast database engine and you can do something about it.

    Yes, I can spell "code fork" -- but if enough people start building on the old MySQL source, maybe they will eventually catch up to current versions of MySQL in terms of features, performance, and reliability and this might give TCX more reason to go all the way with the GPL.

    But then, I'm just an Anonymous Coward

  • by Scola ( 4708 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @12:57PM (#1717827)
    See: http://www.mysql.com/Manual_chapter/manual_Licensi ng_and_Support.html Basically, if you are selling MySQL on CD, charging to intall it, or putting it in a non-redistrubitable distribution they want a cut. The client is already GPLed.
  • You may have enabled penalties for posts under a certain number of characters. In that case, posts can have a minimum score of -2. You should probably go to the users page and check your preferences to see if this is the problem.


    Beer recipe: free! #Source
    Cold pints: $2 #Product

  • I downloaded the source and found it contains 2798 entries. When I pipe the list through sort -u, I find only 1399 of these filenames are unique. Is there an echo in here...in here? (I guess that means some files have been GPL'd *twice*.)
  • How does the GPL help make /. more stable?

    The source code for MySQL is and always has been available, and the license doesn't restrict one's ability to alter that source for their own needs. The existing license, already fairly liberal for a 'commercial' piece of software, allows anyone who cares to assist to help fix whatever problems slashdot may have.

    ...unless you're saying that people can't bugfix code without it being GPL'd first. I'd really hope that isn't the case!
  • I agree that MySQL isn't ready for replacing Oracle, but if you don't need that, you can avoid paying Oracle's huge licesing fees.

    People I know who were previously senior Oracle engineers have stated that most people totally overestimate their database needs and most could easily get by without things like transactions.

  • I've had first hand experience on the differences between PostgreSQL and MySQL. Some time ago, I was asked to take over maintanance of a web application (e-commerce system) that was using MySQL as the RDBM. This database layout hasn't to my knowledge had any real problems, but when I was asked to build another, similar system, for another client, I was faced with the choice between MySQL and PostgreSQL. This time, I sat down and read through some more advanced SQL features. Let's face it; almost everyone can learn basic SQL rather quickly, but most of us (myself included at that point) just never bother with the more advanced features. Sometimes we even make databases using SQL that could just as well have been GDBM's.

    So what I discovered was that PostgreSQL had a lot of advanced features, and when I saw from examples how these could be used, there was no question about that I should use PostgreSQL instead. I used to love MySQL, and I still do as a quick web-application database, but whenever I make a more serious system these days, I tend to use PostgreSQL because the features it provides allows me to construct a database layout that is superior than that which can be made with MySQL.

  • MySQL leaves out features in exchange for speed. PostGreSQL doesn't. Which one to use depends on whether you need those features or not. For web site use you usually don't need those features. If you were writing an accounting or inventory package, on the other hand, I would not do it without having full transaction with rollbacks support, i.e. PostGreSQL. Otherwise you run the risk of database inconsistencies that could be the death of your business.

    I think the transactional capability of modern RDBMS's is a highly overrated feature. I have done a ton of batch database programming in a payroll and benefits environment and have rarely come accross an instance where I really needed transactions. Sure they are nice, and it's good to know that if your program craps out there is no harm done, but in almost every case I would have traded a little bit more coding complexity for the increase in speed.

  • Alphas handle files much bigger than 2 GB. As Linus is supposed to have said, if you want to do stuff like that, get a real computer to do it with.
  • This is a really great development. We've already had PostgreSQL as a really free database. But, it's tuned for a particular type of application. It has full transactional support, it's object-relational, and so on. It's got all these features, and as a result, it can't be as fast as a database that doesn't have them. Now we've got MySQL as a really free database. It's tuned for a completely distinct type of application. If you don't need the transactional properties of complex multi-table operations, but you do need a blazingly fast lightweight database, you now have a choice. I plan on using both. It may even be time to look at combining them for some applications. For an example of a mixture that might make sense, consider a shopping cart system that used PostgreSQL for stuff like inventory and customer records (lots of requirements but not updated as often), but which used MySQL to contain current live shopping cart content data (simpler contents but potentially updated on almost every web page hit). And now both databases are free. Cool!
  • PostgreSQL was an academic database five years ago. Today, it is a full-featured SQL database with many of the same features as Oracle or Informix -- and, like those databases, it is not the fastest in the world and has a pretty hefty footprint.
    The speed problem is pretty much gone nowdays, but any SQL database that supports cursors, triggers, and transactions will be slower than an SQL database that ignores those features in favor of pure speed.
    MySQL leaves out features in exchange for speed. PostGreSQL doesn't. Which one to use depends on whether you need those features or not. For web site use you usually don't need those features. If you were writing an accounting or inventory package, on the other hand, I would not do it without having full transaction with rollbacks support, i.e. PostGreSQL. Otherwise you run the risk of database inconsistencies that could be the death of your business.

  • No, that's not what it means.

    I've only ever installed MySQL from source. I'm certain I couldn't have compiled it locally if I didn't have the source code.

  • check the freshmeat, baby. there's so much stuff that uses mySql. This type of licensing seems to have the best of both worlds. It allows hackers to make a bit of cash so they don't gnaw away at their keyboards, and it allows the community to gain access to the product and run with it as it chooses. That is, if this license is truly openSource.
  • The only thing more boring than someone screeching "First!" is the inevitable whinefest that follows.


  • I was at the O'Reilly conference presentation by Monty Widenius and David Axmark last week, and had a long conversation with David afterwards.

    GPLing MySQL is a gesture of good faith in the direction of free/open source software while not breaking the model that has brought MySQL undeniable success. They estimate there are somewhere between 200,000 and 1 million copies of the program in use. Given that it's only been available for about four years, that's pretty impressive. It just didn't seem possible given how saturated the database market is.

    MySQL is engineered for speed and reliability. The exclusion of transactions, foreign keys, subselects and other features does not simply "make it faster," according to what David told me. The point was to give Monty more time to optimize for speed, robustness and standardization. MySQL has a far more complete adoption of SQL92 than mSQL, for example. They are also committed to adding the remaining standard features such as SQL COMMIT/ROLLBACK (i.e. "transactions").

    Far more important to me as a longtime DBA is the availability of subselects. I have few if any apps where COMMIT/ROLLBACK is really operationally necessary, and I'm plenty happy not to have the overhead that SQL "transactions" necessitates. But I really do need subselects all the time for convenience and efficiency. [A subselect is a query in the form select column1, column2 ... columnx from table y where columnx in (select columnx from table z where...)] It has been near the top of the MySQL to-do list for a year; David says Monty has been cleaning up other stuff as a foundation to implement it soon.

    I wouldn't use MySQL to run a heavy-duty banking or ecommerce system, but neither would I use Oracle to run a moderately sized billing system, parts inventory or statistical research in most cases. But let's be clear about one thing: MySQL is only a "lightweight" system in comparison to the investment in time, money and hardware necessary to run a truly "enterprise-level" database. In all other respects it is a commendable effort and I am really pleased that Monty, David and the people who have developed and support MySQL have had so much success with it.

  • Freshmeat says it's "free to use but restricted". That means it doesn't cost any money, but you can't have the source code. Bummer.

    Beer recipe: free! #Source
    Cold pints: $2 #Product

  • Finally we have a database like MySQL available as free software. Kudos to TcX (i think it's called that :)
  • wow, this is really great news... now my LAMPP system (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl, PHP) is totally free! So now I can develop stuff for my non-profit sites and for commercial sites using the same software! :-)
  • Not really.

    The current version stable version is 3.22, and the development version is 3.23.

    Essentially, this is like the ghostscript licensing where 1-2 year old versions get GPL'd, and the current one is under a different license.

    That said, it is a good thing, especially since there ARE GPL'd SQL server projects that could make good use of it

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Many people claim postgre is slower than mysql. I'd really like to know how much slower... Is it possible to compensate the speed by throwing more hardware in? If mysql is for example 50% faster, it would make sense, but if it's 400% then more hardware won't help as much.
  • *cough* Postgres has always been free and is waaay better.
  • Yeah, it's fast, on databases the size billg's "little black book." But for real databases of actual size, MySQL really starts to cough. Postgres handles larger data without loosing speed, up to 400 gigs I understand. MySQL? 400 megs MAYBE...
  • Oracle => Tractor-trailer
    Postgres => Honda
    MySQL => Go-cart

    Two of the above vehicles are reasonably safe for use on public roads, the other one is just for fun, but it will get you in big trouble if you drive it on the highway. Likewise two of the above "databases" are reasonably safe for use in e-commerce, the other one is not suitable for managing your own or other people's monetary transactions.
  • Not a lot of discussion of this great GPL'd RDBMS, but I use it every day for whatever mission critical stuff I can think of to put on it. Clients crash? No problem. Power outages? No loss. Dump and restore from command line? Easy as pie.

    Basically, PostgreSQL is so 3133+ it makes me want to UUencode it and post it to alt.warez in 261 segments.
  • "I won't run any software unless it's completely GPL'ed software, even if its based on an incredibly-extremely-so-very-close-to-being-free license. I also want to move to Cuba and become a socialist. I also consider BSD-style licensed software not to be free, even though it lets you do way more with the code than the GPL license and is practically public domain. I also think we would have more rights by removing some guarantees of rights from the constitutions and laws of countries and international law. By the way, my name is Richard Stallman."

    Wow, that was a complete flame and troll and will undoubtedly be moderated out, but I have to admit it was fun to write. By the way, if you have the urge to flame me back, get a sense of humour.
  • Who would run such a big database on a *filesystem*, anyway? Normally, you use partitions for that.
  • I wholeheartedly disagree with you! It would be _great_ to have a free port for Windows so more people could learn to use SQL, prototype applications, and increase the "free-market share" of MySQL as the SQL server of choice.

    "If you have the money for WinNT, you also have the money for MSSQL."

    There are plenty of copies of WinNT or Win9x with student liscenses. Open-source is an avenue for learning (for some), and in-my-not-so-humble-opionion should be distributed like the wind.

    A Win9x or NT Port would be fantastic for little projects like this [remotepoint.com]; they don't need a lot of horse power or reliabilty, but provide rapid development under the-other wide-spread O/S.


  • by Gleef ( 86 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @01:44PM (#1717868) Homepage
    Yeah, by those measures it's still a toy. But as a toy it's still powerful enough for little web-backend databases, which it seems to work very well for.

    A Honda Civic is a toy, if your standard is a Tractor-Trailer rig. That doesn't make it less useful for the people who only need to run to the store for groceries. I'm glad to see more choices available in Free database servers, even "toys".

  • The e-mail sent to announce@lists.mysql.org said that:
    We will continue to release older releases of MySQL as GPL from time to time...

    Although they may not release new versions as GPL (right now), at least older versions may become GPL'd.

    ZZWeb.net Web Hosting - http://www.zzweb.net
  • by stevef ( 5539 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @02:06PM (#1717871)

    So if they release verion 3.20.32a under the GPL, by the nature of the GPL doesn't that mean that all successive versions are also covered by the GPL?

    I ask this beacuse the article is very specific about a particular version of MySQL.

    Yeah, I know it's a nitpick, but I'm not trying to look a gift-culture in the mouth. I just want to make sure I understand how the GPL works.


  • Hell, just take all the 1st posts from the past, regardless if they are first, and use that. And keep adding to the database as life goes on.. or until Author Dent gets beamed into space by his alien friend...
  • What does that matter when Linux chokes on file > 2GB?

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan