6 ms·

Well, yes, he's complaining about the same thing I am. But even in the OS world, MySQL is not the only game in town. Postgres, obviously, is probably the bigge

by lukev 16y ago

Well, yes, he's complaining about the same thing I am. But even in the OS world, MySQL is not the only game in town. Postgres, obviously, is probably the biggest contender, but there's a bunch of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_source_database_management_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_source_database_m...

jasonlotito 16y ago
The problem is, the question is both wrong and right at the same time. > Why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons? Why is it? What put it in that position? How did the other databases "fail" to become that reference implementation? I'm pretty sure it's not because MySQL is an easy comparison. The problem is people use the question in a different context. As in, why didn't the person use <insert random database here>. The answer to this question is easy: because MySQL is so popular.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  If PostgreSQL changed their name, perhaps they'd be more popular. It wouldn't stop me if it were the technically best choice, but I'd certainly cringe to have to recommend "post grehs queue ell -- no hold on let me spell it for you..." to a manager who wasn't already familiar with it. I don't understand how this escapes people who obviously want other people to use their software. MySQL sounds too Fisher-Price, but is passable at least. Now "Oracle": that sounds awesomely powerful. And "DB2" sounds awesomely IBMish.
  - hvs 16y ago
    This is totally off-topic, but I've always loved IBM's naming conventions: OS/360, z/OS, OS/2, DB2, etc. It just has this feeling of "Are systems are built out of titanium and iron." The reality is obviously different, but it is definitely a naming style from a different generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products

by lukev 16y ago

jasonlotito 16y ago

The problem is, the question is both wrong and right at the same time. > Why is MySQL always the "reference implementation" for database comparisons? Why is it? What put it in that position? How did the other databases "fail" to become that reference implementation? I'm pretty sure it's not because MySQL is an easy comparison. The problem is people use the question in a different context. As in, why didn't the person use <insert random database here>. The answer to this question is easy: because MySQL is so popular.

glhaynes 16y ago
If PostgreSQL changed their name, perhaps they'd be more popular. It wouldn't stop me if it were the technically best choice, but I'd certainly cringe to have to recommend "post grehs queue ell -- no hold on let me spell it for you..." to a manager who wasn't already familiar with it. I don't understand how this escapes people who obviously want other people to use their software. MySQL sounds too Fisher-Price, but is passable at least. Now "Oracle": that sounds awesomely powerful. And "DB2" sounds awesomely IBMish.
- hvs 16y ago
  This is totally off-topic, but I've always loved IBM's naming conventions: OS/360, z/OS, OS/2, DB2, etc. It just has this feeling of "Are systems are built out of titanium and iron." The reality is obviously different, but it is definitely a naming style from a different generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBM_products